Edition

Signaling and Catalysis in Future Nuclear Crises in South Asia: Two Questions after the Balakot Episode

IN THIS ISSUE: Signaling and Catalysis in Future Nuclear Crises in South Asia: Two Questions after the Balakot Episode, One-Third of Americans Would Support a Preemptive Nuclear Strike on North Korea, Researchers Say, North Korea’s Kim Not Ready to Denuclearize: U.S. Intelligence Agency Chief, NATO Says It Will Act Unless Russia Destroys Nuclear-Ready Missile, U.S. Carried Out Cyberattacks on Iran

Published on June 25, 2019

Signaling and Catalysis in Future Nuclear Crises in South Asia: Two Questions after the Balakot Episode

Toby Dalton | Nuclear Crisis Group

The February 2019 Balakot episode in South Asia started with a familiar predicate: an attack in Indian Kashmir, purportedly claimed by the Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), that killed scores of Indian security personnel. In the following days, amidst the typical overheated political rhetoric compounded by proximity to Indian general elections, India conducted a limited cross-border air strike on what it called a JeM training facility. Pakistan then carried out its own cross-border air strikes “in open space,” which begat an aerial duel that downed an Indian jet and led to Pakistan’s capture of the pilot. And, in the heat of the moment, Pakistan convened a meeting of its nuclear commanders amidst rumors of Indian threats to escalate with a missile attack. As the dust has settled in the weeks since, analysts are debating whether the limited escalations witnessed during the Balakot episode have meaning for future crises and the risk that they may, as Balakot did not, escalate to use of nuclear weapons. This analysis focuses narrowly on two relevant questions: First, does the Balakot episode change views in Delhi and Islamabad about what is required to generate deterrence and about thresholds for conflict escalation? And second, what does the limited nuclear dimension of the episode indicate about catalytic signaling?

One-Third of Americans Would Support a Preemptive Nuclear Strike on North Korea, Researchers Say

Simon Denyer | Washington Post

More than a third of Americans would support a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea if that country tested a long-range missile capable of reaching the United States, new research has found, even if that preemptive strike killed a million civilians. The survey of 3,000 Americans was conducted by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and British research firm YouGov, and asked people to consider a scenario in which North Korea had tested a long-range missile and the U.S. government was considering how to respond. Most did not want their government to launch a preemptive strike, but a large minority supported such a strike, whether by conventional or nuclear weapons. “For many of these hawks, support for an attack, even in a preventive war, does not significantly decrease when the story says that the United States would use nuclear weapons that are expected to kill 1 million North Korean civilians,” the report found.

North Korea’s Kim Not Ready to Denuclearize: U.S. Intelligence Agency Chief

Reuters

The U.S. intelligence community does not believe North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is ready to denuclearize, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lieutenant General Robert Ashley told Fox News in an interview on Monday. A summit in February between Kim and President Donald Trump collapsed when the two leaders were unable to bridge differences between U.S. demands for denuclearization and North Korean demands for sanctions relief. “We still continue to assess within the IC (intelligence community) that Kim Jong Un is not ready to denuclearize,” Ashley said. Trump will visit South Korea this weekend after an exchange of letters with Kim boosted hopes for a resumption of talks aimed at ending North Korea’s nuclear program.


NATO Says It Will Act Unless Russia Destroys Nuclear-Ready Missile

David Reid | CNBC

NATO said Russia must destroy its short-range nuclear-ready cruise missile system, or the alliance will be forced to respond. The U.S. has previously said it will quit a decades-old missile treaty with Russia if the latter fails to destroy the missile, labeled the SSC-8 by NATO. The 1987 INF Treaty between the U.S. and Russia sought to eliminate nuclear and conventional missiles, as well as their launchers, with short ranges (310–620 miles) and intermediate ranges (620–3,420 miles). NATO has said the SSC-8 violates those terms and that Russia has been deploying the system at locations which could threaten countries across Europe. Speaking at a press conference in Brussels Tuesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Russia had just five weeks to scrap the system and save the treaty.

Trump Levels Sanctions Against Iran, With a Warning

Joe Gould | Defense News

President Donald Trump leveled new sanctions on Iran Monday saying America does not seek conflict, adding: “Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon.” Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said he had signed an executive order imposing “hard hitting” sanctions on Iran’s most senior leader, military officials and its top diplomat, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. Less than a week after Iran shot down a U.S. surveillance drone and Trump aborted a retaliatory strike, Trump warned, “We will continue to increase pressure on Tehran.” Trump and his top foreign policy aides hope to pressure Iran’s leaders to limit their nuclear program and to ramp down both its military activity and support for militants in the Mideast. But Democratic lawmakers and foreign policy experts have warned the strategy will only provoke Iranian leaders into a violent response. Reuters reported that Iranian hardline media said Monday the new U.S. sanctions imposed on Tehran were based on “fabricated excuses,” but Iranian officials had not immediately responded.


U.S. Carried Out Cyberattacks on Iran

Julian Barnes and Thomas Gibbons-Neff | New York Times

United States Cyber Command on Thursday conducted online attacks against an Iranian intelligence group that American officials believe helped plan the attacks against oil tankers in recent weeks, according to people briefed on the operation. The intrusion occurred the same day President Trump called off a strike on Iranian targets like radar and missile batteries. But the online operation was allowed to go forward because it was intended to be below the threshold of armed conflict — using the same shadow tactics that Iran has deployed. The online attacks, which had been planned for several weeks, were ultimately meant to be a direct response to both the tanker attacks this month and the downing of an American drone this week, according to the people briefed on the operations.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.