Connect with us

Defence

Pakistan: An Irresponsible nuclear-armed country

A tottering nation brandishing a sword against its neighbour that prefers to wield a shield can never hope to be seen as a stabilising influence—a nuance that has been missed entirely by Pakistan.

Ashish Singh

Published

on

Pakistan Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa with Prime Minister Imran Khan

The remarks by Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai (Retd) at International Institute of Strategic Studies, London, in February 2020 have created a high level of enthusiasm in Pakistani strategic analysis circles. In a much-quoted speech, Kidwai says, “South Asia has remained on a slippery slope over the years lurching dangerously towards strategic instability rather than strategic stability.” He is, in fact, quite right on that account — but sadly, everything he offers in terms of logic thereafter is far from sound. Kidwai has been at the forefront of spin-doctoring the Pakistan nuclear narrative for many decades now and therefore his statement — “The reality is that it is Pakistan that must shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the vital strategic balance in the conventional and nuclear equation viz India as the critical determinant of the state of strategic stability in South Asia…” — comes as a surprise, though not totally unexpected.

It is in the interest of creating a sound understanding of nuclear doctrines that two key issues be discussed at the outset. One, the concept of the ‘Always-Never’ dilemma and second, the ‘Stability-Instability’ paradox. The ‘Always-Never’ dilemma refers to the concept articulated by Peter D. Feaver and postulates that “the (nuclear) weapons should ‘always’ launch when ordered by a legitimate authority, but ‘never’ if no legal order has been given… each nucleararmed state has struck a slightly different balance at different points in time…depending on the importance placed on the urgency of response and the general state of civil-military relations and domestic politics”. The reader will surely be able to assess which South Asian country has a stable civilmilitary structure rooted in tenets of international norms and democracy and, therefore, automatically provides a stable nuclear outlook. Jerry Lewis and Bruno Tertrais have also made some key observations in their Occasional Paper published by the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, Monterey, seeking to address sets of questions for each of the nine known nuclear-weapon possessors. This would make interesting reading for the discerning reader.

The second aspect is the ‘Stability-Instability’ paradox. This was articulated in the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 2009 and explains that the paradox emerges in the following scenario: “As the likelihood of nuclear conflict declines, the risk of conventional war increases and as the likelihood of nuclear conflict increases, the risk of conventional war declines. This inverse relationship between the probability of nuclear and conventional military conflict is known as the stability-instability paradox.” Analysing this, Paul S. Kapur has concluded, tellingly, “Nuclear stability undermines Pakistani deterrent efforts.” It will be no leap of imagination to therefore understand the ‘advantage’ perceived by Pakistan to maintain a state of instability in the nuclear domain.

One can well attribute the recent flurry of articles in the media and elsewhere from the Pakistani strategic community on nuclear stability to the recent confiscation of a dual use item (Autoclave) being shipped on a Chinese merchant vessel at Kandla Port by Indian authorities. Fully understanding the risk of sounding irreverent in a discussion on nuclear issues, the guess is that the Pakistani strategic spindoctors are now tilting at windmills, a la Don Quixote. Some recent analysis put out by think tanks in Pakistan suffers from fatal flaws, the major flaw being the assumption that propaganda is the foundation of analysis. Thus, there is an urgent need to counter some of the ‘analysis’ put forth. Stitching together two contradicting statements with rightful indignation does not amount to analysis.

Let us first look at the analysis put forth by Saba Hanif, published on the website of ‘modern diplomacy’ on 19 April 2020, detailing India’s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) efforts and, in fact, expressing awe at the robustness of the systems. One knows Hanif has totally missed the mark in her analysis by ignoring the operative word in the Indian efforts: ‘Defence’. Indian BMD efforts and philosophy are aimed at protecting herself from an unstable nuclear neighbour who is more than happy to play the nuclear card at every opportunity. That efforts to defend oneself can cause instability in the calculus of the very nation advocating the threat of force is a new angle indeed.

One can appreciate the ingenuity of the assertion as much as it is a fallacy. The analysis concludes by stating, “…in South Asian context, induction (of BMD) by India has further increased the security dilemma for Pakistan. This can give a false sense of security to the Indian military and political leaders; motivate them to launch an offensive against Pakistan or intentionally initiate a conflict which will destabilize the strategic stability.” This is a farcical statement at best since South Asian instability, as fully acknowledged by strategic analysts world over, is caused by Pakistan continuing its politico-military agenda through the use of terror proxies and compounding that with a declared policy on Nuclear First Use.

Another analysis that appeared in Strafasia, titled “Pakistan Quid Pro Quo Plus: A Key Strategic Determinant” authored by Haris Bilal, has presented the analysis, “The current security architecture of South Asia revolves around India’s irresponsible behaviour as a nuclear state… contrary to India’s declared NFU policy, Pakistan has never made such a commitment or statement and has deliberately maintained a policy of ambiguity concerning a nuclear first strike against India.” This stellar work (pun intended) of analysis begs the question how creating a first strike ambiguity against a nation, with a publicly stated and committed ‘No First Use’ nuclear policy, can be seen as a stabilising factor. It is in fact the continuous beating of the ‘First Use’ war drum that creates instability and lends the situation to serious errors of judgement. The only rational stabilising argument here is that the nation with a No First Use policy will suffer a first strike before it considers the nuclear option in retaliation.

 Strafasia subsequently published an article by Dr Zafar Iqbal Cheema where the opening statement is, “Credible capability, deterrence equilibrium, credible signalling and reputation for resolve are the keynotes of stable and sustainable nuclear deterrence… the defending states must be able to resist the political and military demands of the opposing side, which is preparing to impose conflict on a country trying to defend its nation, deny coercion or defy escalation dominance”. The irony of this statement made by a Pakistani analyst is only matched by the absurdity of arguments offered subsequently. The author has declared that India and Pakistan have competing rather than corresponding nuclear narratives. The point entirely missed by the analyst is that the Indian nuclear narrative of ‘No First Use’ is admittedly de-escalatory and stabilising in the face of an oft-repeated and irresponsibly bandied ‘First Use’ nuclear threat. How the No First Use can be seen as competitive in the face of a rival’s First Use assertion has very conveniently been left out of the analysis.

Dr Cheema has also lauded the Policy Statement issued by Lt Gen Khalid Ahmed Kidwai (Retd) on 6 February 2020 at IISS. In this writer’s view,the use of a think tank as forum to make a Policy Statement is a display of poor statecraft – but the reader is welcome to differ! Returning to the larger canvas of ‘policy’ pronouncements by Khalid Kidwai, his blinkered perspective of Pakistan’s ‘stabilising’ First Use nuclear posture should be measured against a realistic look at how India’s No First Use doctrine actually delivers stability and addresses both the ‘stability-instability’ paradox and the ‘alwaysnever’ dilemma

Manpreet Sethi, an internationally renowned authority on nuclear doctrinal issues, avers, “In a situation where both sides have secured second strike nuclear capabilities, a first use of nuclear weapons…cannot rule out the possibility of nuclear retaliation… Therefore, despite an offensive nuclear strategy, neither can victory be assured, nor the extent of damage (owing to the very nature of the weapon) be considered acceptable. Is it then useful, or even credible, to threaten first use of nuclear weapons?” She thereafter goes on to explain that an NFU strategy concedes the onus of escalation to the adversary and becomes more stabilising by not causing the military to strain the nuclear leash on hair trigger alert, which can easily fall prey to misadventure. Consequently, the political leadership is freed from the psychological pressure of having to decide when and at what stage of war to use the weapon. The stabilising nature of the NFU policy thus becomes self-evident even to those uninitiated in the workings of nuclear deterrence.

The argument that South Asian strategic stability today cannot be spoken of without the nuclear overhang is not being contested here. However, what is under debate is the continuous barrage of weak analysis based on cherrypicked strategic issues and misplaced understanding of stability. This is merely jingoism, peddled as analysis. A tottering nation brandishing a sword against a neighbour that prefers to wield a shield can never hope to be seen as a stabilising influence. A nuance that has been missed entirely by Pakistan. That said, one doesn’t blame the Pakistani establishment for trying, given the slippery slope they find themselves on.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Defence

Depth of China’s poison tree farm

It’s time for the world to realise—and accept—that China’s much publicised and acknowledged development story is full of illegal, unethical and unfair practices.

Shreedharan Raman

Published

on

The doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree is meant to remove illegally acquired evidence from negatively impacting a criminal defendant. Similarly, the same can be applied to China’s development story, which it achieved through illegal, unethical and unfair practices. A reality check is warranted here before accepting the growth is achieved fair and square.

Back in the 1950s, China was extremely poor. With WW2 just over and people were going through a revolution. A newborn country has more ‘josh’ as we call it. Just in that josh, the Communist Party of China started to make monumental mistakes within the first two decades of their formation. They could have built a beautiful and sustainable economy. With blessings of such beautiful neighbors. What seemed an empty canvas full of opportunity to paint a beautiful motif, now seemed tarnished. Be it invasion of Tibet, war with India, great leap forward, parting ways with USSR and subsequently Mongolia to name a few.

China then turned moderate in the 1970s, with Deng Xiaoping, who understood that China can’t rise without the help of neighbors. He started to work on the issue. He made peace as much as he could, however temporary it could be. And it did help China to ramp up the number of factories and heavy industries from zero to near monopoly in many fields. China is almost making everything for the World. Even it has monopolized supply of bamboo for incense sticks.

Anyone would admire the focused vision of Chinese leadership that they invested and made sure the ecosystem and Government machinery works towards the single goal of global dominance. Full credits to that. No second thoughts at all. But there are two key parameters they forgot: Ethics and honesty. In many ways, India was in a similar situation then. New country syndrome. Poor, rising aspirations and all the above that China faced. In fact, more than what China faced. As we had democracy, a diverse nation with no common interconnecting language. Different food habits, terrain, culture and weather and so on. We are more diverse within the Nation. Yet, India was fortunate enough to have quickly found a soul. Something united us as a nation. It was organic.

People connected across the country with some soulful connection. That seems missing in China. Some predicted a breakup of India in a few decades after partition. We proved that wrong. With all the complaints we might have, at the end of the day, our system still works. It might be very slow and seem inefficient. But it works. Whereas in China, it is one-way communication on what the party decides. Despite all our difficulties, we still play by established rules. World is now slowly beginning to discuss how China is into a different level of stealing intellectual property from Western countries. So, how does this work?

Perception & reality

Businesses that went to China since Deng Xiaoping, it was working wonders. They had little problem dealing with bureaucracy and so on. One-point to deal in Beijing and work gets done anywhere in China. Say, Shanghai or Chengdu or Guangdong. Over time, word did spread.

These businesspersons became quasi-spokesperson for China. Reality strikes a few years later. When they begin to realise what is happening. Big industries started seeing competitors. Chinese ones. Especially, those the big industries partnered with earlier. Making exact same components and products, at a fraction of the cost. Some went to Courts in China only to realise that the Chinese Courts and Judges are extended arms of the CPC and not independent. They had to let go for legal actions thereafter.

Legal but unethical

The story of China’s highspeed rail miracle is legal, but unethical. Everyone knows for sure how quickly China developed such a vast network of High-Speed Rail (HSR). Not many know how this was done quickly through shortcuts.

A decade ago, China was planning to create an HSR network across the country. One small problem: They didn’t have the technical expertise and know-how. So, they called international experts. Siemens was given an order to make 300 kmph train sets for China Railway Rollingstock Corporation (CRRC). These were cutting edge. Technology wise, up to date. Sweet order. None could avoid it. Just a catch. There’d be tech transfer from Siemens to CRRC.

Siemens did sign the deal, expecting not to lose a big market like China as they would need more trains. But, CRRC tricked Siemens. Leave alone going ahead and capturing bids from within China, CRRC started competing “head-to-head” with Siemens. This is all done by a single signature on tech transfer. Not sure if it would stand in Court of Law, in favor of China, elsewhere. On technology transfer, similar experiences happen for Alstom, Bombardier, Kawasaki. Now this is perfectly legal.

In European theater, to stop being potent competitors for China Rail and Rollingstock corporation (CRRC), it is reported that China even used diplomatic clout on European Commission to stop the politically contentious merger of Siemens — Alstom. This merger means the biggest competitor for CRRC, which still would be roughly half of what CRRC is currently. Proposed Siemens — Alstom merger points out how fractures are created by China. It triggered a political issue between Germany and France and they are talking to each other to calm the situation to find a way out.

Meanwhile, the Alstom — Bombardier deal worked out well, with a German interference as Alstom made some quick business moves to gain early anti-trust approval from European Commission. It is an entirely different story on why Germany is supporting China so much despite reservations from other European nations. Chinese use their car market to have that leverage over Germany. This is nothing but, economic militarisation through joint ventures, unethical reverseengineering, militarising trade.

 Illegal and unethical

Year 2006. Duke University, San Diego, United States of America. The (in)famous story of Liu Ruopeng who was investigated by the FBI for stealing intellectual property from Dr David Smith’s US Department of Defense funded laboratory. Dr Smith was into research about metamaterials that create an invisible cloak — which could make sure radar signals don’t pick objects that are covered by the cloak. Liu was doing his doctorate under Dr Smith who was researching.

 Liu ultimately got his PhD. But, after his expulsion from the research group. The FBI could do nothing beyond expulsion. Liu today is no ordinary man. He is dubbed to be the next Elon Musk. After he went back to China, he was rewarded. He started his own company. Liu is a billionaire already. Probably he would earn much more. His innovations might sound cool. Even today, the entrance of his office has a cloak monument. Highlight of this episode of stealing is that this research and lab of Dr Smith was being funded by the US Department of Defense. Imagine the amount of money, capability and resources needed to infiltrate such sensitive research projects.

Another incident. US Department of Justice released a statement on its website on July 30, 2020 about an Ohio woman Li Chen pleaded guilty today via video conference in US District Court to conspiring to steal scientific trade secrets and conspiring to commit wire fraud concerning the research, identification and treatment of a range of pediatric medical conditions.

Per NationalPulse.com, Li Chen and Yu Zhou (her husband) were trying to steal secrets relating to Exosomes — which plays a key role in identification and treatment of various medical conditions including Liver Cancer. Zhou and Chen admitted to selling “isolation kits” through their company for “personal gain” in China. Highlight of this whole episode is, they got funds from Chinese Government — State Administration of Foreign Expert Affairs and National Natural Science Foundation of China.

As Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C Demers put it, “Once again we see the People’s Republic of China (PRC) facilitating the theft of our nation’s ingenuity and hard work as part of their quest to rob, replicate and replace any product they don’t have the ability to develop themselves.” On the pattern he added, “Far from being an isolated incident, we see the PRC implicated in around 60 percent of all trade secret theft cases. This continued economic belligerence runs contrary to the values and norms that facilitate the success of our industries and countering it remains among our highest priorities.” Sixty percent of all trade theft cases happen in China.  Let that sink in. That’s how deep China has intruded into US companies, institutions and research projects.

In 2014, China passed a law which requires every Chinese citizen to cooperate in acts of Chinese intelligence agencies. In other words, there can’t be a more direct order for its citizens to co-opt in surveillance acts by the Ministry of State Security of PRC. To give the adequate human resource required, China uses those large numbers of tourists and students that it sends every year to many countries. Especially to the US, UK and Australia. To give an indication of the scale of it, China has about 3.7 lakh students in the US, 1.2L in the UK, 1.6L in Australia. All these students have an obligation to abide by the above legislation, if need be. Similarly, for tourists, act as “courier” to transfer back to China. Few weeks ago, some of these students were caught on camera participating in protests that happened in the US.

 To influence those high and mighty in power corridors, China invested heavily in key people. Take the case of Andy Purdy, Huawei’s Chief Security officer. He was a member of the White House team that drafted the US National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace (2003). Another example is how China’s propaganda is delivered at the doorsteps of politicians. As Republican Jim Banks said in a recent interview to Epoch Times, “It’s unbelievable to me. The China Daily, which is a state-run propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party, magically appears on the doorstep of every lawmaker on Capitol Hill. Imagine the impact it makes in the psyche of decision makers.

That’s not all. If you think, the US was the worst infected country by Chinese communists, think again. Because, Australia story would beat that. China conquered Australian land mass through silent invasion, without firing a single bullet. The largest among China’s poison tree farm in Indo-Pacific region is, Australia. The silent invasion has happened. Australia is battling it in various ways. (This article is the first part of a two-part series. second will appear tomorrow.)

Shreedharan Raman watches strategic moves by countries around the globe, especially China, and writes his opinions occasionally on shreedharan. com and can be contacted at write@shreedharan.com. 

Continue Reading

Defence

Handwara locals celebrate one year of the abrogation of Article 370 with mela

Ashish Singh

Published

on

Soundly rejecting Pakistan’s efforts to create a false narrative around the first anniversary of abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmiris celebrated the occasion by organising “Bangus Awaam Mela” in Handwara district with great fanfare. The two-day annual festival witnessed the participation of hundreds of Gujjars, Bakarwals and other Kashmiri sightseers from Kupwara, Tangdhar and Handwara. 

The mela commenced on 3 August and the grand finale was held on 4 August. Village games such as horse racing, sheep shepherding challenge, tugs of war and wood chopping competitions were organised on the first day in which the local Gujjar and Bakarwal community, from various Bhaiks who inhabit the beautiful meadows during the summer months, actively participated.

 A veterinary and medical camp was also organised by the local Rashtriya Rifles unit as per the request of senior community members. The doctors advised, treated and gave free medicines to 679 patients including 49 children. The veterinary camp provided medical aid to 135 livestock in addition to surgical assistance to the wounded. 

On the festival’s second day, the audience enjoyed folk songs by the Gujjar community, patriotic songs by local children, dances and a karate display by Handwara Kudo Association in addition to the village games finals. The event culminated with rousing participation in National Anthem recitation and a vote of thanks by the community elders to the Army for its support.

Continue Reading

Defence

Military bands gearing up to perform before 15 August for Covid warriors

Ashish Singh

Published

on

The Indian military bands will perform for a fortnight before Independence Day across the country. This will happen for the first time. The performances are intended as gestures of gratitude and appreciation of the nation for the Covid-19 warriors who have been steadfastly fighting to stop the spread of the virus at the risk of their lives. 

The bands of the Army, Navy and Police have performed at Porbandar, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Raipur, Amritsar, Guwahati, Allahabad and Kolkata so far. The Military and Police Bands will perform in the afternoon today at Visakhapatnam, Nagpur and Gwalior. On 7th August, military bands are scheduled to perform in Srinagar and Kolkata. Tri-services band will be putting up three performances in Delhi, one each at Red Fort, Rajpath and India Gate on 8th, 9th and 12th August respectively. 

Military and Police Bands will also perform in Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Shimla and Almora on 8th August; in Chennai, Nasirabad, ANC (Andaman& Nicobar Command) Flag Point and Dandi on 9th August, and in Imphal, Bhopal and Jhansi on 12th August. The final performance of the series will be held on 13th August in Lucknow, Faizabad, Shilong, Madurai and Champaran.

Continue Reading

Defence

Geelani’s danse macabre: Rejoicing over a burnt paradise

Despite calling for secession and integration with Pakistan, Syed Ali Shah Geelani has had seven surgeries in Delhi and Mumbai, accepts grants from the Central and Kashmiri governments from time to time, and has all his sons and daughters either studying or working in Indian cities.

Ashish Singh

Published

on

Syed Ali Shah Geelani must be a relieved man now. The Pakistan Senate passed a unanimous resolution on 27 June 2020 conferring on him that country’s highest civilian honour, Nishan-ePakistan. Additional proposals to name a university after him and including his life story in Pakistani school curricula, already up to the brim with venom against India, are also on the anvil. After years of shouting from the rooftops that “Kashmir Banega Pakistan” and “Pakistan se Kashmir ka rishta kya, la ilaha illallah”, slogans most Pakistani Army generals and sleuths have cried themselves to sleep to and taken to their graves without any visible progress, Geelani has been able to turn their dreams partly into reality. Kashmir obviously will never become Pakistan in terms of a decrepit economy or being a slave to a foreign country, but in terms of deaths due to terrorist violence, it has come quite close to the failed state. And Geelani, the man who’s now enjoying his time under the sun is the one who is responsible for turning Kashmir into his own people’s graveyard.

Born in Sopore in 1929, Geelani completed his education at Oriental College Lahore and has been besotted with Pakistan ever since. A hardcore pro Pakistani, he has given multiple calls for violence within the Valley and defended the heinous actions of terrorist groups. For him, any violence can be justified as long as it is against “Indian imperialism”. Unfortunately, the same is echoed by a number of pseudo-academics within India such as Arundhati Roy, Varavara Rao and others. It is no secret that Geelani was revered by militant groups, particularly the Hizbul Mujahideen. In March 1992, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) militants, then considered rivals to Hizbul, had to release Geelani just a couple of hours after they kidnapped him and were forced to issue an apology the next day. An ex member of Jamat e Islami Kashmir, he condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden by the Americans, holding a prayer for him in absentia. He also supported the 2001 attack on the Parliament as well as the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. Leader of the Tehreek e Hurriyat, he has vehemently supported the erstwhile state’s absorption into Pakistan and propagated an extremely unsanitary and myopic view of Islam, poisoning the minds of entire generations.

 Geelani never expressed regret for the massive Kashmiri loss of life through acts of terrorist violence, only focusing on the deaths of terrorists by security forces and branding them as innocent. His clarion call for violence in the aftermath of Burhan Wani’s killing engulfed the valley in a spiral of savagery that resulted in a number of civilian fatalities, most by Pakistani sympathisers, camouflaged as Kashmiris. As uncovered by detailed investigations by several media houses, Geelani’s interjection into the Burhan Wani episode helped lift a flagging terrorist campaign, already on death row, by allowing Pakistani operatives to enter Kashmir and brainwash innocent civilians. In some cases, the Pakistanis instigated clashes with security forces from among a crowd of Kashmiri people and then slunk away for the civilian population to bear the aftermath.

Geelani has always been feted by the Pakistani establishment and most Pakistani dignitaries, in the heyday of cordial relations between the two South Asian neighbours, made it a point to visit him at least once, transgressing Indian hospitality time and again. However, in the recent years he fell out of favor with the current political dispensation in Pakistan. The visits stopped and so did the praises, the encomiums from across the fence. The watershed moment for him was when he successfully opposed the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s four-point formula (to resolve the Kashmir issue), which he considered as a compromise, given Geelani has always advocated J&K merger with Pakistan. With Geelani opposing Musharraf, all other separatists who were opening up to the idea fell like a pack of cards.

 In fact, there was a fear that the nonagenarian would be expelled from the very party that he had founded specifically with the help of the ISI. However, the shrewd old man pre-empted this move and instead announced his resignation in June 2020. Geelani’s choice to not criticise Pakistan in his resignation letter directly but to attack Pakistan-backed separatist outfits is being seen as a call to “level” the status quo in Kashmiri separatism, ensuring entries of new actors while disciplining those who he perceives as uncommitted to the separatist cause. His preferred successor Abdullah Geelani is no favorite of the Pakistani establishment. In fact, he was the first one to complain about a scandal regarding selling of medical college seats exclusively reserved for Kashmiri students in POK, Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad by Ghulam Mohammed Safi, then convenor of the Muzaffarabad chapter of the APHC, in 2018.

Curiously, Geelani also leads a double life. Despite calling for secession and integration with Pakistan, he’s had seven surgeries in Delhi and Mumbai, accepts grants from the Indian and Kashmiri governments from time to time and has all his sons and daughters either studying or working in Indian cities. He also has a comfortable home in Delhi’s Malviya Nagar where he prefers to spend the coldest days of the winters, away from the kangri-infested harsh climate of his homeland. So much for being a revolutionary! India’s Enforcement Directorate raided his Delhi house and recovered millions of dollars worth property paid for by the ISI. The reality of a man, once known as the Omar Mukhtar of Kashmir, is not so inspiring and if told properly won’t even make it to the footnotes of the history chapters in the Pakistani academic curricula.

Continue Reading

Defence

MoD signs tripartite MoU with IIT Kanpur and DARPG

Ashish Singh

Published

on

A tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed on Tuesday between Department of Defence (DoD) Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence), Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances (DARPG) and Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IITK) in the presence of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Minister of State (MoS) (Independent Charge) for Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, MoS for Prime Minister’s Office, Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Atomic Energy, Department of Space Personnel Dr Jitendra Singh. Both the Ministers expressed satisfaction over the signing of MoU.

The MoU envisages IIT Kanpur to develop Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) Techniques to conduct exploratory and predictive analysis of Public Grievances received on the web based Centralised Public Grievances Redress & Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) pertaining to the MoD. The DARPG, the nodal Department of Government of India in respect of policy initiatives on Public Grievances and custodian of data on web-based CPGRAMS portal will provide the data dump on the Public Grievances pertaining to MoD to IIT Kanpur to facilitate their analysis. The project is expected to help the MoD to identify the cause and nature of grievances and bring about systemic changes and policy interventions wherever required.

Continue Reading

Defence

Raytheon and Rafael form Iron Dome joint venture

Ashish Singh

Published

on

Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a Raytheon Technologies business, and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd, an Israeli-based defence technology company, have signed a joint venture to establish an Iron Dome Weapon System production facility in the United States. The new partnership, called Raytheon RAFAEL Area Protection Systems, anticipates finalizing a site location before the end of the year. “This will be the first Iron Dome all-up-round facility outside of Israel, and it will help the US. Department of Defense and allies across the globe obtain the system for defense of their service members and critical infrastructure,” said Raytheon Missiles & Defense Systems’ Sam Deneke, vice president of Land Warfare & Air Defense business execution.

The new facility will produce both the Iron Dome Weapon System, which consists of the Tamir interceptor and launcher, and the Sky Hunter missile, a U.S. derivative of Tamir. Both Tamir and Sky Hunter intercept incoming cruise missiles, unmanned aerial systems and short-range targets such as rockets, artillery, mortars and other aerial threats.“We are excited about this new stage in our partnership with Raytheon and proud of our U.S. production,” said Brig. Gen. (res.) Pini Yungman, executive vice president for Air and Missile Defense of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. He added “We have long partnered on U.S. production of Iron Dome and are pleased to increase manufacturing and bring Sky Hunter to the US.” Raytheon Missiles & Defense and Rafael have teamed for over a decade on Iron Dome, the world’s mostused system with more than 2,500 operational intercepts and a success rate exceeding 90 percent.

Continue Reading

Trending