This is the fourth installment in a five-part series summarizing and commenting the 5 December 2014 US Department of State “Limits in the Seas” issue explaining the different ways in which one may interpret Chinese maritime claims in the South China Sea. It is a long-standing US policy to try to get China to frame her maritime claims in terms of UNCLOS. Read part one, part two, part three.
[otw_shortcode_button href=”https://cimsec.org/buying-cimsec-war-bonds/18115″ size=”medium” icon_position=”right” shape=”round” color_class=”otw-blue”]Donate to CIMSEC![/otw_shortcode_button]
3.- “Dashed Line as a Historic Claim”
The third way to see the dashed-line, according to the Limits in the Seas series paper, would be as a historic claim. Under UNCLOS this can take two forms, “one of sovereignty over the maritime space (‘historic waters’ or ‘historic title’)” or “some lesser set of rights (‘historic rights’) to the maritime space.” The paper devotes much more room to discussing this possibility than to the two previous alternative interpretations. It begins by pointing out that “some Chinese government statements and acts could be read to support a version of this historic claim interpretation”, and by noting that given that “the dashed-line maps pre-date the People’s Republic of China, the views of Taiwan are also of interest.” Concerning the Island’s claims, the text underlines that while in 1993 its “Policy Guidelines for the South China Sea” said that the dashed lines enclosed a “’historic water limit’ within which Taiwan ‘possesses all rights and interests’” (see K-H. Wang, “The ROC’s Maritime Claims and Practices with Special Reference to the South China Sea,” Ocean Development and International Law, Volume 41, 2010, pp. 237-252), Taipei has not stuck to this view. “Subsequent maritime legislation enacted by Taiwan and subsequent public statements, however, suggests that this view may no longer be officially held,” noted the State Department in another Limits on the Seas series issue, published in 2005, devoted to Taiwan. While the text refers to this 2005 paper, the latter’s contents do not discuss in depth ROC claims on the South China Sea, as clear from the fact that the term “South China Sea” only appears three times, whereas “dash” is not to be found. Thus, while the assertion that in studying PRC claims one should pay attention to ROC claims seems logical, this is not followed up, either in the 2005 Limits on the Issues paper devoted to Taiwan, or in the 2014 one dealing with China. In other words, the Department of State does not follow its own advice. How should we read this? On the one hand, the preeminent use of “Taiwan” may seem to amount to a limited recognition of political realities on the ground, in opposition to Beijing’s views, further contradicted by the scant regard for ROC practice as opposed to the PRC’s emphasis on administrative and international legal continuity with the Nationalist regime. An alternative, more Beijing-friendly, interpretation of the DOS approach may be that it is treating Taipei as the de facto authority on the Island, also for law of the sea purposes, while restricting its role in the South China Sea, where the PRC has consistently sought to exclude Taiwan from regional fora, in line with its traditional policy towards the Island. More generally, this may reflect the complex and ambiguous status of Taiwan, with neither the Island itself nor countries like the United States completely sure what it is. To add to the confusion concerning Taiwan in the DOS paper, it states on page 21 that “Many islands and other features in the South China Sea are occupied not just by China, but by … Taiwan,” yet again this is not followed by any detailed examination of Taipei’s claims.
Going back to evidence for the possible interpretation of Beijing’s claims as historic, the report cites as “most notable” China’s “1998 EEZ and continental shelf law, which states [in Article 14] without further elaboration that ‘[t]he provisions of this Act shall not affect the historical rights of the People’s Republic of China’” (emphasis added in the DOS report). China’s 2011 Note Verbale says that Beijing’s claims are supported by “historical and legal evidence,” but while the DOS report adds emphasis to “historical”, one should be careful not to confuse a historical claim with a claim supported by history. A country may put forward historical evidence in both negotiations and arbitration or adjudication in areas where UNCLOS refers to “equitable” solutions. The text also notes how many “Chinese institutions and commentators have considered that the dashed-line maps depict China’s historic title or historic rights.”
The DOS reports explains that “some” Chinese Government actions and statements which are “inconsistent with” UNCLOS, while not amounting to “express assertions of a historic claim, they may indicate that China considers that it has an alternative basis – such as historic title or historic rights – for its maritime claims in the South China Sea,” and provides some examples, such as the assertion by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang on 10 March 2014 that the Second Thomas Shoal (Ren’ai Reef) was under Chinese “sovereignty.” Qin Gang said “It is known to all that China has sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their surrounding waters, including the Ren’ai Reef.” This mantra about sovereignty, together with repeated appeals to history, could indeed be considered as evidence that what Beijing has in mind is a historic claim. Furthermore, it may well be a claim going beyond the provisions for such term in UNCLOS. The report provides further evidence, beyond statements, to support the view that China may be making a historical claim. First of all, the “periodic oath-taking ceremonies at James Shoal” by Chinese naval vessels “to affirm ‘sovereignty’ over this bank” and the 2012 introduction by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNNOC) of lease blocks in front of Vietnam’s central coast, in “waters under jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China” according to the company yet with “portions of two of these blocks (BS16, DW04)” extending “without explanation to waters that are beyond 200 nm from any Chinese-claimed island.” The DOS report stresses that the resulting “assertion of maritime jurisdiction … exceeds what is provided for under” UNCLOS.
Coat of arms of USS Lassen (DDG 82), which has conducted FONOPS in the South China Sea. Experts have criticized their ambiguity and are still debating their exact nature.
The idea that Chinese claims are “separate from, and additional to” UNCLOS is also suggested by domestic legislation, the DOS report notes. As an example it cites China’s 1999 Law on Marine Environmental Protection, which describes its geographical scope as extending to the country’s “internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf of the People’s Republic of China and other sea areas under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China” (emphasis in the DOS report). According to the text, UNCLOS is restricted to maritime zones mentioned in the law, and not to any “other sea areas under the jurisdiction” of the PRC, and “perhaps” this is a reference to “areas where China considers that it has historic claims.” Again, we must remember that this could be understood in two different ways, either China making a claim based on historic facts (recognized to a limited degree by UNCLOS) or China laying down sovereignty over certain areas of the sea based on principles and rules outside UNCLOS, or outside the prevailing interpretation of UNCLOS.
Has China made a historic claim? Next the DOS report examines two issues: whether China has actually “Made a Historic Claim”, and whether it would “have Validity.” Concerning the former, the text states that “China has not actually made a cognizable claim to either ‘historic waters’ or ‘historic rights,’” the reasons being a lack of “international notoriety” and the statement in her 1958 Territorial Sea Declaration that “high seas” separate the Chinese mainland and coastal islands from “all other islands belonging to China”. The text admits that the expression “historic waters” appears in some Chinese legislation and statements, and actually cites some of them, but believes that this does not amount to “notoriety” to a degree sufficient to “at the very least” allow “other states” to “have the opportunity to deny any acquiescence with the claim by protest etc.” (Taken from C.R. Symmons, Historic Waters in the Law of the Sea: A Modern Re-Appraisal, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008), p. 145) since “no Chinese law, declaration, proclamation, or other official statement” exists “describing and putting the international community on notice of a historic claim.” The text dismisses references to “historic rights” in the 1998 EEZ and continental shelf law as “a savings clause” and “not a statement of a claim itself.” An additional reason put forward by the text is that these could be references to “China’s sovereignty claim to the islands, and not the waters.” The 1947 map does not constitute either, according to the DOS report, a claim, and furthermore even if one had been made, the fact it was published domestically “in the Chinese language” would not amount to “an act of sufficient international notoriety to have properly alerted the international community.” More generally, the text considers that no subsequent Chinese map can be treated as having made a claim either, since they all “lack the precision, clarity, and consistency that could convey the nature and scope of a maritime claim” and cites in support of this view the ICJ “statement of principle” in the Frontier Dispute case between Burkina Faso and Mali, which says that “Whether in frontier delimitations or international territorial conflicts, maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial title, that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights.”
Alex Calvo is a guest professor at Nagoya University (Japan) focusing on security and defence policy, international law, and military history in the Indian-Pacific Ocean. Region. A member of the Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC) and Taiwan’s South China Sea Think-Tank, he is currently writing a book about Asia’s role and contribution to the Allied victory in the Great War. He tweets @Alex__Calvo and his work can be foundhere.
[otw_shortcode_button href=”https://cimsec.org/buying-cimsec-war-bonds/18115″ size=”medium” icon_position=”right” shape=”round” color_class=”otw-blue”]Donate to CIMSEC![/otw_shortcode_button]
This piece was originally published by the Federation of American Scientists. It is republished here with the author’s permission. Read it in its original form here.
By Hans M. Kristensen
ASROC nuclear test.
Remember during the Cold War when US Navy warships and attack submarines sailed the World’s oceans bristling with nuclear weapons and routinely violated non-nuclear countries’ bans against nuclear weapons on their territories in peacetime?
The weapons were onboard ballistic missile submarines, attack submarines, aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and supply ships. The weapons were brought along on naval exercises, spy missions, freedom of navigation demonstrations and port visits.
Sometimes the vessels they were on collided, ran aground, caught fire, or sank.
Not many remember today. But now the Pentagon has declassified how many nuclear weapons they actually deployed in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean. In our latest FAS Nuclear Notebook published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists we review this unique new set of declassified Cold War nuclear history.
The Numbers
The declassified documents show that the United States during much of the 1970s and the 1980s deployed about a quarter of its entire nuclear weapons stockpile at sea. The all-time high was in 1975 when 6,191 weapons were afloat, but even in 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were 5,716 weapons at sea. That’s more nuclear weapons than the size of the entire US nuclear stockpile today.
The declassified data provides detailed breakdowns for weapons in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean for the 30-year period between 1961 and 1991. Prior to 1961 only totals are provided. Except for three years (1962, 1965 and 1966), most weapons were always deployed in the Atlantic, a reflection of the focus on defending NATO against the Soviet Union. When adding the weapons in the Mediterranean, the Euro-centric nature of the US nuclear posture during the Cold War becomes even more striking. The number of weapons deployed in the Pacific peaked much later, in 1987, at 2,085 weapons.
Click to view full size
The declassified numbers end in 1991 with the offloading of non-strategic naval nuclear weapons from US Navy vessels. After that only strategic missile submarines (SSBNs) have continued to deploy with nuclear weapons on board. Those numbers are still secret.
In the table above we have incorporated our estimates for the number of nuclear warhead deployed on US ballistic missile submarines since 1991. Those estimates show that afloat weapons increased during the 1990s as more Ohio-class SSBNs entered the fleet.
Because the total stockpile decreased significantly in the early 1990s, the percentage of it that was deployed at sea grew until it reached an all-time high of nearly 33 percent in 2000. Retirement of four SSBNs, changes to strategic war plans, and the effect of arms control agreements have since reduced the number of nuclear weapons deployed at sea to just over 1,000 in 2015. That corresponds to nearly 22 percent of the stockpile deployed at sea.
The just over 1,000 afloat warheads today may be less than during the Cold War, but it is roughly equivalent to the nuclear weapons stockpiles of Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea combined.
Mediterranean Mystery
The declassification documents do not explain how the numbers are broken down. The “Atlantic,” “Pacific,” and “Mediterranean” regions are not the only areas where the U.S. Navy sent nuclear-armed warships. Afloat weapons in the Indian and Arctic oceans, for example, are not listed even though nuclear-armed warships sailed in both oceans. Similarly, the declassified documents show the number of afloat weapons in the Mediterranean suddenly dropping to zero in 1987, even though the U.S. Navy continued so deploy nuclear-armed vessels into the Mediterranean Sea.
During the naval deployments in support of Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in early 1991, for example, the aircraft carrier USS America (CV-66) deployed with its nuclear weapons division (W Division) and B61 nuclear strike bombs and B57 nuclear depth bombs. The W Division was still onboard when America deployed to Northern Europe and the Mediterranean in 1992 but had been disbanded by the time it deployed to the Mediterranean in 1993.
B61 and B57 nuclear weapons are displayed on board the USS America (CV-66) during its deployment to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The nuclear division was also onboard in 1992 but gone in 1993.
As ships offloaded their weapons, the on-board nuclear divisions gradually were disbanded in anticipation of the upcoming de-nuclearization of the surface fleet. One of the last carriers to deploy with a W Division was the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), which upon its return to the United States from a Mediterranean deployment in 1992-1993 ceremoniously photographed the W crew with the sign: “USS John F. Kennedy, CV 67, last W-Division, 17 Feb. 93.” The following year, the Clinton administration publicly announced that all carriers and surface ships would be denuclearized.
The last nuclear weapons division on the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) is disbanded in February 1993. The following year the entire surface fleet was denuclearized.
Since nuclear weapons clearly deployed to the Mediterranean Sea after the declassified documents showing zero afloat nuclear weapons in the area, perhaps the three categories “Atlantic,” “Pacific,” and “Mediterranean” refer to overall military organization: “Atlantic” might be weapons under the command of the Atlantic Fleet (LANTFLT); “Pacific” might refer to the Pacific Fleet (PACFLT); and “Mediterranean” might refer to the Sixth Fleet. Yet I’m not convinced that organization is the whole story; the Atlantic numbers didn’t suddenly increase when the Mediterranean numbers dropped to zero.
The declassified afloat numbers end in 1991. After that year the only nuclear weapons deployed at sea have been strategic weapons onboard ballistic missile submarines. Most of those deploy in the Atlantic and Pacific but have occasionally deployed into the Mediterranean even after the declassified documents list zero afloat weapons in that region, and even after the surface fleet was denuclearized.
In 1999, for example, the ballistic missile submarine USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) conducted a port visit to Souda Bay on Crete with it load of 24 Trident missiles and an estimated 192 warheads. The ship’s Command History states that the port visit, which took place December 12-16, 1999, occurred during the “Alert Strategic Deterrent Patrol in support of national tasking” that included a “Mediterranean Sea Patrol.”
Risks of Nuclear Accidents
Deploying nuclear weapons on ships and submarines created unique risks of accidents and incidents. Because warships sometimes collide, catch fire, or even sink, it was only a matter of time before the nuclear weapons they carried were threatened, damaged, or lost. This really happened.
During night air exercises on November 22, 1975, for example, the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and cruiser USS Belknap (CG-26) collided in rough seas 112 kilometers (70 miles) east of Sicily. The carrier’s flight deck cuts into the superstructure of the Belknap setting off fires on the cruiser, which burned out of control for two-and-one-half hours. The commander of Carrier Striking Force for the U.S. Sixth Fleet on board the Kennedy issues a Broken Arrow alert to higher commands stating there was a “high probability that nuclear weapons (W45 Terrier missile warheads) on the Belknap were involved in fire and explosions.” Eventually the fire was stopped only a few meters from Belknap’s nuclear weapons magazine.
The fire-damaged USS Belknap (CG-26) after colliding with USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) new Sicily in 1975. The fire stopped a few meters from the nuclear warhead magazine.
The Kennedy also carried nuclear weapons, approximately 100 gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft. The carrier caught fire but luckily it was relatively quickly contained. Another carrier, the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), had been less fortunate six years earlier when operating 112 kilometers (70 miles) southwest of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. A rocket on a F-4 Phantom aircraft exploded puncturing fuel tanks and starting violent fires that caused other rockets and bombs to explode. The explosions were so violent that they tore holes in the carrier’s solid steel deck and engulfed the entire back of the ship. The captain later said: “If the fire had spread to the hangar deck [below], we could have very easily lost the ship.” The Enterprise probably carried about 100 nuclear bombs and was powered by eight nuclear reactors.
The nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered USS Enterprise (CVN-65) burns off Hawaii on January 14, 1969. The carrier could have been lost, the captain said.
Dozens of nuclear weapons were lost at sea over the decades because they were on ships, submarines, or aircraft that were lost. On December 5, 1965, for example, while underway from operations off Vietnam to Yokosuka in Japan, an A-4E aircraft loaded with one B43 nuclear weapon rolled overboard from the Number 2 Elevator. The aircraft sank with the pilot and the bomb in 2,700 fathoms (4,940 meters) of water. The bomb has never been recovered. The Department of Defense reported the accident took place “more than 500 miles [805 kilometers] from land” when it revealed the accident in 1981. But Navy documents showed the accident occurred about 80 miles (129 kilometers) east of the Japanese Ryukyu Island chain, approximately 250 miles (402 kilometers) south of Kyushu Island, Japan, and about 200 miles (322 kilometers) east of Okinawa. Japan’s public policy and law prohibit nuclear weapons. (For a video if B43 aircraft carrier handling and A-4 loading, see this video.)
An A-4 Skyhawk with a B43 nuclear bomb under its belly rises on an elevator from the hangar deck to the flight deck on the USS Independence (CV-62) in an undated US Navy photo. In December 1965, a B43 attached to an A-4 rolled off the elevator on the USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) while the carrier was on its way to Yokosuka in Japan.
Three years later, on May 27, 1968, the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Scorpion (SSN-589) suffered an accident and sank with all 99 men on board in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 644 kilometers (400 miles) southwest of the Azores. The Department of Defense in 1981 mentioned a nuclear weapons accident occurred in the Atlantic in the spring of 1968 but continues to classify the details. It is thought that two nuclear ASTOR torpedoes were on board the Scorpion when it sank.
The USS Scorpion (SSN-589) photographed in the Mediterranean Sea in April 1968, one month before it sank in the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy later located and photographed the wreck (inserts).
Risks of Nuclear Incidents
Another kind of risk was that nuclear weapons on board US warships could become involved in offensive maneuvers near Soviet warships that also carried nuclear weapons. Sometimes those nuclear-armed vessels collided – sometimes deliberately. Other times they were trapped in stressful situation. The presence of nuclear weapons could significantly increase the stakes and symbolism of the incidents and escalate a crisis.
Some of the mostdramatic incidentshappened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 where crisis-stressed personnel on Soviet nuclear-armed submarines readied nuclear weapons for actual use as they were being hunted by US naval forces, many of which were also nuclear-armed. At the time there were approximately 750 U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in the Atlantic Ocean.
Less serious but nonetheless potentially dangerous incidents continued throughout the Cold War. In May 1974 the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Pintado (SSN-672) collided almost head-on with a Soviet Yankee I-class ballistic missile submarine while cruising 200 feet (60 meters) below the surface in the approaches to the Petropavlovsk naval base on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The collision smashed much Pintado’s bow sonar, jammed shut a starboard side torpedo hatch, and damaged the diving plane. The Pintado, which probably carried 4-6 nuclear SUBROC missiles, sailed to Guam for seven weeks of repairs. The Soviet submarine, which probably carried its complement of 16 SS-N-6 ballistic missiles with 32 nuclear warheads, surfaced immediately and presumably limped back to port.
On August 22, 1976, for example, US anti-submarine forces in the Atlantic and Mediterranean had been tracking a Soviet nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed Echo II-class attack submarine for ten days. The Soviet sub partially surfaced alongside the US frigate USS Voge (FF-1047), then turned right and ran into the frigate. The collision tore off part the Voge’s propeller and punctured the hull. The Voge is thought to have carried nuclear ASROC anti-submarine rockets. At the time there were around 430 U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. The Soviet submarine suffered serious damage to its sail and some to its front hull section. (For a US account of the incident, see here; a Russian account is here.)
Even toward the very end of the Cold War in the late-1980s, nuclear-capable warships continued to get involved in serious incidents at sea. During a Freedom of Navigation exercise in the Black Sea on February 12, 1988, the cruiser USS Yorktown (CG-48) and destroyer USS Caron (DD-970) were bumped by a Soviet Krivak-class frigate and a Mirka-class frigate, respectively. Both U.S. ships were equipped to carry the nuclear-capable ASROC missile and the Caron had completed a series of nuclear certification inspections prior to its departure from the United States. Yet the W44 warhead for the ASROC was in the process of being phased out and it is possible that the vessels did not carry nuclear warheads during the incident. The declassified data shows that the number of U.S. nuclear weapons in the Mediterranean dropped to zero in 1987. The Soviet Krivak frigate, however, probably carried nuclear anti-submarine weapons at the time of the collision.
The nuclear-capable USS Caron (DD-970) and USS Yorktown (CG-48) are bumped by Soviet frigates during Freedom of Navigation operations inside Soviet territorial waters on February 12, 1988. For a video of the Caron collision, see here, and the Yorktown collision, see here.
Nuclear Diplomacy Headaches
In addition to the risks created by accidents and incidents, nuclear-armed warships were a constant diplomatic headache during the Cold War. Many U.S. allies and other countries did not allow nuclear weapons on their territory in peacetime but the United States insisted that it would neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons anywhere. So good-will port visits by nuclear-armed warships instead turned into diplomatic nightmares as protesters battled what they considered blatant violations of the nuclear ban.
The port visit protests were endless, happening in countries all over the world. The national governments were forced to walk a fine line between their official public anti-nuclear policies and the secret political arrangements that allowed the weapons in anyway.
Public sentiments were particularly strong in Japan because it was the target of two nuclear weapon attacks in 1945. Japanese law banned the presence of nuclear weapons on its territory and required consultation prior to introduction, but the governments secretly accepted nuclear weapons in Japanese ports.
During the 1970s and early-1980s, opposition to nuclear ship visits grew in New Zealand and in 1984 culminating in the David Lange government banning visits by nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed vessels. The Reagan administration reacted angrily by ending defense cooperation with New Zealand under the ANZUS alliance. Only much later, during the Obama administration, have defense relations been restored.
The nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed attack submarine USS Haddo (SSN-604) is barraged by protestors during a port visit to Oakland in New Zealand in 1979.
The treatment of New Zealand was partially intended to deter other more important allies in Europe from adopting similar anti-nuclear legislation. But not surprisingly, the efforts backfired and instead increased opposition. In Denmark the growing evidence that nuclear weapons were actually being brought into Danish harbors despite its clear prohibition soon created political pressure to tighten up the ban. In 1988, this came to a head when a majority in the parliament adopted a resolution requiring the government to inform visiting warships of Denmark’s ban. The procedure did not require the captain to reveal whether his ship carried nuclear weapons, but the conservative government called an election and asked the United States to express its concern.
The crew of the nuclear-armed destroyer USSConyngham (DDG-17)uses high-pressure hoses to wash anti-nuclear protestors off its anchor chain during a standoff in Aalborg, Denmark, in 1988.
Across the Danish Straits in Sweden, the growing evidence that non-nuclear policies were violated in 1990 resulted in the government party deciding to begin to reinforce Sweden’s nuclear ban. The policy would essentially have created a New Zealand situation in Europe, a political situation that was a direct threat to the US Navy sailing its nuclear warships anyway it wanted.
These diplomatic battles over naval nuclear weapons were so significant that many US officials gradually began to wonder if nuclear weapons at sea were creating more trouble than good.
After The Big Nuke Offload
Finally, on September 27, 1991, President George H.W. Bush announcedduring a prime-time televised address that the United States would unilaterally offload all non-strategic nuclear weapons from its naval forces, bring all those weapons home, and destroy many of them. Warships would immediately stop loading nuclear weapons when sailing on overseas deployments and deployed vessels would offload their weapons as they rotated back to the United States. The offload was completed in mid-1992.
Two years later, the Clinton administration’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review, decidedthat all surface ships would lose the capability to launch nuclear weapons. Only selected attack submarines would retain the capability to fire the nuclear Tomahawk land-attack sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM/N), but the weapons would be stored on land. Sixteen years later, in 2010, the Obama administration decided to retire the TLAM/N as well, ending decades of nuclear weapons deployments on ships, attack submarines, and on land-based naval air bases.
After the summer of 1992, only strategic submarines armed with long-range ballistic missiles have carried U.S. nuclear weapons at sea, a practice that is planned to continue through at least through the 2080s. These strategic submarines (SSBNs) have also been involved in accidents and incidents, risks that will continue as long as nuclear weapons are deployed at sea. Because secrecy is so much tighter for SSBN operations than for general naval forces, most accidents and incidents involving SSBNs probably escape public scrutiny. But a few reports, mainly collisions and groundings, have reached the public over the years.
USS Von Steuben (SSBN-632) after collision with tanker Sealady.
During a strategic deterrent patrol on August 9, 1968, the USS Von Steuben (SSBN-632) was struck by a submerged tow cable while operating submerged about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the southern coast of Spain. As it surfaces, the submarine collides with the tanker Sealady, suffering damage to the superstructure and main deck (see image right). The submarine carried 16 Polaris A3 ballistic missiles with 48 nuclear warheads.
Two years later, on November 29, 1970, a fire breaks out onboard the nuclear submarine tender USS Canopus (AS-34) at the Holy Loch submarine base in Scotland. Two nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN-657) and USS James K. Polk (SSBN-645)) were moored alongside Canapus. The Francis Scott Key cast off, but the Polk remained alongside. The fire burns out of control for four hours killing three men. The submarine tender carried nuclear missiles and warheads and the two submarines combined carried 32 Polaris A3 ballistic missiles with a total of 96 nuclear warheads.
Four years later, in November 1974, after having departed from its base at Holy Loch in Scotland, the ballistic missile submarine USS James Madison (SSBN-627) collides with a Soviet submarine in the North Sea. The collision left a nine-foot scrape in the Madison, which apparently dove onto the Soviet submarine, thought to have been a Victor-class nuclear-powered attack submarine. The Madison carried 16 Poseidon (C3) ballistic missiles with 160 nuclear warheads. The Soviet submarines probably carried nuclear rockets and torpedoes. Madison crew members called the incident The Victor Crash. Two days after the collision, the Madison enters dry dock at Holy Loch for a week of inspection and repairs.
The missile submarine USS James Madison (SSBN-627) in dry dock in Scotland in 1974 only days after it collided with a Soviet Victor-class nuclear-powered attack submarine in the North Sea.
After nuclear weapons were offloaded from surface ships and attack submarines in 1991-1992, nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines have continued to run aground or bump into other vessels from time to time.
On September 24, 1993, for example, after conducting a medical evacuation for a suck crew member, the ballistic missile submarine USS Maryland (SSBN-738) ran aground at Port Canaveral, Florida. The submarine was on a strategic deterrent patrol with 24 missiles onboard carrying an estimated 192 warheads. The Maryland eventually pulled free and continued the patrol two days later.
On March 19, 1998, while operating on the surface 125 miles (200 kilometers) off Long Island, New York, the ballistic missile submarine USS Kentucky (SSBN-737) was struck by the attack submarine USS San Juan (SSN-751). The Kentucky suffered damaged to its rudder and San Juan’s forward ballast tank was ruptured. In a typical display of silly secrecy, the Navy refused to say whether the Kentucky carried nuclear weapons. But it did; the Kentucky was in the middle of its 21st strategic deterrent patrol and carried its complement of 24 Trident II missiles with an estimated 192 nuclear warheads.
In 1998, the USS Kentucky (SSBN-737) carrying nearly 200 nuclear warheads collided with an attack submarine less than 230 miles (378 kilometers) from New York City.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Obama administration has made an important contribution to nuclear policy by declassifying the documents with official numbers of US nuclear weapons deployed at sea during the Cold War. This adds an important chapter to the growing pool of declassified information about the history of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The new declassified information helps us better understand the extent to which nuclear weapons were involved in day-to-day operations around the world. Every day, nuclear-armed warships of the US and Soviet navies were rubbing up against each other on the high seas in gong-ho displays of national determination. Some saw it as necessary for nuclear deterrence; others as dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. Many of those who were on the ships submarines still get goosebumps when they talk about it and wonder how we survived the Cold War. The tactical naval nuclear weapons were considered more acceptable to use early in a conflict because there would be few civilian casualties. But any use would probably quickly have escalated into large-scale nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it.
The declassified information, when correlated with the many accidents and incidents that nuclear-armed ships and submarines were involved in over the years, also helps us remember a key lesson about nuclear weapons: when they are operationally deployed they will sooner or later be involved in accidents and incidents.
This is not just a Cold War lesson: thousands of nuclear weapons are still operationally deployed on ballistic missile submarines, on land-based ballistic missiles, and on bomber bases. And not just in the United States but also in Britain, France, and Russia. Some of those deployed weapons will have accidents in the future. (See here for the most recent)
Doing so would be to roll back the clock and ignore the lessons of the Cold War and likely make the current tensions worse than they already are.
Instead, the United States should seek to work with Russia – even though it is challenging right now – to reduce deployed nuclear weapons and jointly try to persuade smaller nuclear-armed countries such as China, India, and Pakistan from increasing the operational readiness of their nuclear forces. That ought to be one thing Russia and the United States could actually agree on.
Hans M. Kristensen is the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists where he provides the public with analysis and background information about the status of nuclear forces and the role of nuclear weapons.
The research for this publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.
This article was originally published by the South Asia Analysis Group. It is republished here with the author’s permission. Read the article in its original form here.
By Commodore RS Vasan IN (Ret)
“An Opportunity for India to showcase the Capacity, Capability, and Intent of a strong, vibrant, emerging Maritime Nation in the 21st Century.”
The IFR 2016 will indeed be a grand spectacle as more than one hundred ships from the navies of over fifty countries will participate in this exercise that is carried out every five years. The event, which in the initial years was mostly limited to the participation of ships from the Indian Navy, Indian Coast Guard and the merchant navy, has transformed in to an international event with a major maritime event conducted in 2001 under the initiative of then Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Susheel Kumar. The marching of the naval officers and sailors from ships around the world along the marine drive in Mumbai and the presence of ships from around the world signaled a new era in maritime diplomacy. The intentions of a maritime India to occupy center stage in both regional and global missions by using the Indian Navy as an instrument of national policy were explicit.
Indian Navy carrier. Indian Navy photo.
As the participants of the IFR witnessed scores of indigenous ships of the Indian Navy, it was evident that the Indian Navy was in the process of transforming from a buyer’s navy to a builder’s navy. The process was a prerequisite to assuming greater regional leadership role and responsibilities. This did not escape the attention of the participant nations and motivated them to engage with India at many levels. It is not to be forgotten that this initiative was taken under the leadership of Admiral Susheel Kumar, who succeeded Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. Admiral Bhagwat was relieved of his duties as CNS on 30 December 1998 by the NDA Government under certain debatable circumstances. The Navy’s morale, which was dented, had to be built up brick by brick and the IFR of 2001 from that point of view provided a launching pad for the force that was fast becoming a blue water Navy. The theme ‘Bridges of Friendship’ was very well received and created an environment that facilitated the process of integration of a regional navy in to a global matrix.
While both the Indian Navy and the Indian Coast Guard have conducted the Fleet Reviews on the east coast (The very first Indian Coast Guard Fleet Review by the Raksha Mantri was conducted off the east coast when the author was the Regional Commander of the Indian Coast Guard, Region East), this is the first time that an international fleet review of this scale is being conducted in the Bay of Bengal. By design, this also complements the ‘Look East’ policy of the Government of India. It also adds value to other maritime initiatives, such as the biannual Milan (established as an initiative for meeting of the naval minds in Port Blair) and the Indian Ocean Symposium (IONS), now a well-established forum among Navies of not just the Indian Ocean but also the rest of the world.
Indian Navy maritime patrol craft. Indian Navy photo.
By all expectations, China will be a first-time participant in the Indian Fleet Review. From the point of view of PLA-Navy, participation signals its intention to be a part of global initiatives in the Indian Ocean. The anti-piracy patrols by PLAN units, which are still underway off the coast of Somalia, provided ample opportunity for the Chinese Navy to assert its intention to be part of the international mechanisms to combat piracy. Both the Indian Navy and the Chinese Navy worked shoulder to shoulder in warding off this threat, though India was concerned about the presence of another extra regional player in its traditional back yard. The visit of the Chinese submarines both conventional and nuclear last year again caused ripples in Delhi. There are no doubts that India and China will jostle for power and influence in the Indian Ocean Region. While India does have geography on its side, the surplus funds that can be channeled for initiatives such as the Maritime Silk Road and the One Belt One Road will change the strategic landscape of Indian Ocean Region. The IFR also comes at a time when there are great initiatives being taken by China in Asia, Africa and Europe in terms of connectivity. The fact that the PRC plans to build a naval base in Djibouti and has huge investments in the maritime sector in Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are of concern to India, which appears to have conceded strategic space to China in its areas of influence. The presence of the INS Vikramaditya and India’s nuclear submarines would send a message to observers about the might of the Indian Navy that can be brought to bear as and when required in areas of interest. The presence of a P-8i surveillance aircraft could also generate interest in the capability of this newly acquired platform, capable of locating and tracking submarines and surface assets of extra-regional powers in the Indian Ocean. The message that the Indian Navy is net-centric warfare capable as a result of plenty of indigenous efforts would be very clear.
The Indian Navy has inherited many of the traditions and practices from the Royal Indian Navy while adding its own local flavor. The President of India, by virtue of being the Supreme Commander of the Armed forces, reviews the fleet invariably before he or she demits office during the tenure of five years as the President. It is a mega-event by any standards, and even the state Government has committed more than 83 crores in beautifying the city of Vizag, which houses the Eastern Naval Command and important maintenance facilities of the Navy. It is also the base for the nuclear submarines of the Indian Navy, including strategic assets. All the arrangements have been reviewed at the level of the Raksha Mantri and the Navy and nation are geared up for this event in the first week of February that will showcase the prowess of the Indian Navy. A successful conclusion of the IFR will reinforce the position of the Indian Navy as a professional arm that can be used as a powerful instrument of national policy both in war and peace.
Historically, the role of the Indian Navy after the spectacular missile attacks on ships and oil tank farms Karachi in 1971, with the then-only Asian carrier Vikrant enforcing a blockade off then East Pakistan indicates how it is important to possess and use a strong navy for furthering national objectives. The fact that the Indian Navy was not used at all during the war in 1965 therefore comes as a surprise. The role of the Indian Navy during the tsunami of 2004, its evacuation of Indian nationals from war torn areas, and its ability to relief and succor to the flood and cyclone affected victims on many occasions highlights strength of the Indian Navy that has proved its mettle.
The Mumbai terror attack in November 2008 changed the way maritime threats were perceived and brought about a paradigm shift in the maritime security architecture (MSA). The Indian Navy was placed at the apex of the MSA and made responsible for both coastal and oceanic security. Without going into the details, suffice it to say that the entire gamut of maritime threats and response mechanisms have undergone a sea change.
It is not out of place to recollect that it was the Indian Navy that first brought out a National Maritime Doctrine in 2004 revised it in 2007, 2009, and 2015. Even in terms of indigenization, the Indian Navy is way ahead of its sister services, having embarked on indigenization in the late 60s. The first indigenous frigate Nilgiri and its follow-ons have provided the nation with options for ship building in both PSUs and private yards. The fact that the Indian Navy was able to even design a carrier and orchestrate its construction in the Cochin Shipyard Limited is a tribute to the leadership, the naval designers, and in-house capability to produce warships of different size. The design of stealth ships such as the Shivalik, large destroyers such as the INS Kochi, construction of corvettes, and the completion of the naval off-shore vessels are all praiseworthy. The most notable feature of the Indian Navy’s indigenization process is the addition of INS Arihant which provides that strategic deterrence capability that eluded India for many decades. The construction of improved versions of Arihant and also the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) are logical
Indian Navy photo.
conclusions to the aspirations of a blue water navy that has both regional and global roles. However, the dwindling strength of conventional submarines has been a source of great concern to the planners in Delhi. There are some recent efforts to ensure that this serious deficiency is overcome both by accelerating the Scorpene production and also embarking on the indigenous production of project 75A submarines for which more than 60,000 crores has been earmarked.
The shape and size of the Indian Navy is formidable as India moves in to the next century. With geography and a growing economy on its side, India’s Navy will continue to complement the ambitions of a maritime India. A powerful Navy will promote maritime safety and security in the Indian Ocean. As a guarantor of net security at sea, safeguarding the global commons, maritime interests, and the sea lines of communications that represent the life lines and arteries of global trade and commerce will be a top priority for the Indian Navy.
India is conscious of the fact that there are rich dividends in forging strategic alliance with other like-minded nations on a case by case basis while retaining its strategic autonomy. The trilateral treaty with Sri Lanka and Maldives and Exercise Malabar or other such exercises are all measures to ensure that the maritime domain remains manageable and the Indian Navy is in a position to control the happenings in areas of interest. Maritime engagement with Mauritius, Seychelles, Mombasa, Oman, and other maritime nations are all significant in ensuring that there is seamless integration of the maritime domain, and that all the maritime nations in the region are under one umbrella and can work in unison to serve the interests of the century of the seas. The IFR will be a keenly watched event around the world and the navies who are part of this Indian initiative will carry back cherished memories from this mega-event. From the point of view of the Indian Navy, it will again provide an opportunity to take the initiative from “Building Bridges of Friendship” in 2001 to an architecture that is “United through Oceans” in 2016 and beyond.
Commodore RS Vasan is an alumnus of Defence Services Staff College, the Naval War College, and the International Visitor Leadership Prgramme. He is presently the Director of Chennai Centre for China Studies and also the Head of Strategy and Security Studies at Center for Asia Studies. Commodore Vasan has been associated with many think tanks since retirement after a distinguished service of 34 years that included a share of command, staff, and instructional tenures both in the Navy and the Coast Guard. He is regular speaker at many international events and writes extensively on maritime issues and International relations. He can be contacted at [email protected]
The recently concluded 12th Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) has important implications for both Vietnamese and regional security. China’s placement of the HYSY-981 oil rig in disputed waters days before the congress was another stark reminder of just how tenuous regional peace is and how quickly flareups can occur. Despite losses for the reformist and pro-western Camp of the VCP, Vietnamese defense modernization and defense diplomacy will not be adversely affected.
Our bottom line is this: Vietnam will continue with its defense modernization and it will not stop its international defense cooperation, though it is unlikely to accelerate it. While the media focused on the ascendency of the “pro-China” faction, we argue that Vietnam will continue to walk a diplomatic fine line. The party’s overwhelming concern for maintaining its monopoly of power, desire to reassert the primacy of the party, and fear of a colored revolution will lead to a focus on internal security that the Vietnam People’s Army (VPA) has not had in recent years. Although Naval and Air Force modernization programs will continue, it will not be as fast as had a different leadership been selected at the Congress.
Personnel Appointments
The quinquennial leadership meeting elected a 180-member Central Committee, which in turn elected a 19-member Politburo. Much media analysis has been too superficial focusing on how the “pro” or “anti-China” factions. No one in Vietnam is solidly “pro-China.” But there are stark differences on strategies to cope with China that are borne out in factional politics. And to be sure, conservatives do tend to believe – though they are repeatedly proven otherwise – that their historical and ideological relationship with China can help to defuse crises.
Politburo members. From left to right: Dinh The Quynh, Tran Dai Quang, Nguyen Phu Trong,Nguyen Xuan Phuc, and Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan.
Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, the architect of Vietnam’s entry into the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) and closer ties with the West, and in particular the United States, had been the front-runner to become the VCP’s General Secretary. Dung had the most popular support, in large part due to his economic reform programs, but also because he was the only leader to stand up to China in the 2014 crisis when China placed the HYSY-981 oil rig on Vietnam’s continental shelf. His outspoken criticism of China led Dung to deepen the relationship with the United States, and he saw the TPP as a strategic tool to keep the United States engaged in the region, not a mere trade agreement.
Yet Dung was outmaneuvered by a conservative faction at the Congress. When they could not get their own man for the job, the party’s top ideologue Dinh The Huynh, they were able to pull together an “anyone but Dung” coalition, and presented incumbent Nguyen Phu Trong as the compromise candidate. Although Dung fought back from the floor of the Congress, his strategic vision for the country, which included heightened economic reform, faster privatization of state owned enterprises, and closer economic ties with the West, proved unsettling to many in the leadership that prefer a cautious economic approach and a more balanced foreign policy.
Nguyen Phu Trong may be ideologically closer to China, but there is no doubt that he evolved significantly since 2012, endorsing the TPP and making a historically unprecedented trip to the United States in July 2015, where he met with President Obama in the Oval Office. But he has also tried to diffuse tensions with China, focusing on a shared history and socialist solidarity. Had Dung won, one could have expected a more confrontational foreign policy towards China, deepened ties and greater security cooperation with the United States and other regional partners. But what he accomplished is unlikely to be reversed by the new leadership which has already pledged to continue economic reforms.
The composition of the Politburo really represents the two inter-connected goals of the VCP: To maintain its monopoly of power while growing the economy. While there are an unprecedented number of economic technocrats on the Politburo, political control is clearly a priority. To that end, the Politburo includes four people with Ministry of Public Security/police backgrounds.
Even more troubling, the incoming Minister of National Defense General Ngo Xuan Lich, is a career political commissar who has never had command or operational experience. A political commissar is important when it comes to fighting “people’s war,” but the Vietnam People’s Army (VPA) has undergone a fundamental transformation in the past decade and now fields arguably the most offensively capable military in Southeast Asia. Vietnam’s navy is now one of the most modern and capable in the region.
Gen. Ngo Xuan Lich, incoming Minister of National Defense.
And of great concern is that Gen Do Ba Ty, the Deputy Minister of Defense and VPA’s Chief-of-Staff, who has overseen much of that modernization, got passed over by a political commissar. Ty was seen as being too close to Prime Minister Dung.
In addition, one of the three members of the VCP’s Secretariat, the office responsible for running the day to day affairs of the VCP, is also a former VPA political commissar. The other two Secretariat members both have their origins in the Ministry of Public Security.
One cannot look at the composition of the leadership and not come to the conclusion that maintaining the political loyalty of the military and police remains a paramount concern. The leadership was alarmed when in 2014, a petition by former officers called for a re-writing of the constitution to make the VPA legally bound to defend the country, not the party. Such calls have been amplified in Vietnam’s surprisingly open social media. Tensions with China in 2014-15 led to greater public discussion as to why the VPA’s primary responsibility was to defend the regime, not the country, in the face of heightened Chinese aggression.
But it also reflects the leadership’s ongoing fear of “colored revolutions.” The heavy commissar representation suggests that the leadership remains prepared to use the VPA for internal security operations should the need ever arise.
Nonetheless, even though there is a heavy commissar representation in the Politburo and the Secretariat, the majority of military officers, including Do Ba Ty, recently elected to the 12th Central Committee come from either the General Staff or from one of Vietnam’s eight military districts.
The VPA holds 22 seats on the Central Committee (12.2 percent), making it the third largest sectoral block, following provincial representation (28.3 percent) and central government representation (20 percent).
The VPA’s 22 member representation includes five political commissars. That is the same number as in the 11th Congress, though the difference is that this also includes the incoming Minister of National Defense. The other four include two vice chiefs of the Political Directorate and the political commissars of Military Districts 5 and 9.
Other VPA members of the Central Committee include the commanders of Military Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, as well as the commanders of the People’s Navy, People’s Air Force and the Border Guards.
There are four members from the General Staff. Another three hold the rank of Deputy Minister: one comes from the military intelligence, one from the Border Guards and one from Military District 7.
The final two members are the deputy head of the National Defense University and the General Director of Viettel, the country’s military-owned and largest telecommunications firm, which the military has staunchly resisted divesting; ostensibly because it produces communication equipment for the military and the intelligence’s gathering functions, but also because it is greatly profitable.
It is not all bad. As mentioned above, the Politburo includes a number of technocrats who will continue to steer Vietnam towards TPP compliance, reform and privatization of the state owned sector.
The 12th Central Committee also includes three highly skilled and US educated diplomats, who have been architects of closer ties with the US, Japan and other countries in the region. Minister of Foreign Affairs Pham Binh Minh has been outspokenly critical of China, and Beijing is most certainly unhappy to see him finally elevated to the top decision making body. He favors a closer relationship with the West and away from China, and one can reasonably expect that Vietnam’s current trend of inching toward the West will not be stopped. Two of his deputies are also on the Central Committee, and both are firm proponents of deeper integration with the West and a more proactive role for the United States in regional security.
It is also important to note that Sr. Lt. Gen. Nguyen Chi Vinh remains on the Central Committee and will stay on as Deputy Minister of National Defense. Vinh, who has an intelligence back ground, is arguably the country’s most important strategist and has been the leading driver of military relations with the United States, Japan, India, Israel and other countries in the region.
All military and state appointments will be ratified in May when the National Assembly convenes. And even within the top echelons of the VCP, personnel appointments were still being made a week after the Congress concluded.
Policy Implications
The 12th Congress will not lead to substantial changes in Vietnamese foreign policy or defense relations.
In his speech to the 12th Congress, Gen Lich stated that he would remain committed to defense modernization, territorial defense and international military cooperation. But these were giveaways, and he really provided no detail of the country’s evolving security strategy. There is ample concern whether the appointment of a career commissar will slow the military’s modernization efforts.
The VPA will draft a new White Paper later this year and we do not know what shape it will take with the new leadership. But we see no meaningful shift in its “Three No’s Policy”, as iterated in the last White Paper:
No foreign alliances,
No foreign military bases, and
No ganging up with one country against a third.
But Vietnam was already creatively working around some of them by 2015.
The 2011 MOU signed with the US Department of Defense has been gradually implemented as trust has been built. Although the United States remains only able to have one port visit a year, that does not include CARAT and other naval exercises or HADR operations.
And while Hanoi will never allow a foreign military base in its deep-water port of Cam Ranh Bay, in mid-2015, it announced that it would be an open port that any country could use for resupply and repairs. Japan has already entered into negotiations and the United States, too, has expressed interest. In fact, the United States has already sent several ships, albeit auxiliary vessels, into Cam Ranh Bay for repair and resupply.
Vietnam and the US have increased military cooperation. In May 2015, Vietnam participated in the US Pacific Command (PACOM) Amphibious Leaders Symposium (PALS) together with other Asia-Pacific countries, though not China. PALS seeks to develop amphibious operations, capability development,interoperability, and builds on areas of previous cooperation such as HADR missions and peace keeping operations.
Vietnam and the US are proceeding with their annual defense Bilateral Defense Dialogue/Mid-Term Review in February 2016. No changes are expected due to the 12th Congress. And Vietnam was a key beneficiary of US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative, announced in mid 2015. Under this agreement, Vietnam is to receive $122 million in assistance in order to help “bolster its maritime Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and command and control within Vietnam’s maritime agencies.”
And already the defense relationship seems like it will remain on a very solid footing. On 30 January, the USS Curtis Wilbur entered within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the Paracel Archipelago, which China forcibly seized from Vietnam in 1977. Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately stated that Vietnam supported the right to innocent passage, as long as they follow international rules. This is contrary to the last US FONOP on 26 October 2015 in the Spratly Islands, when Vietnam remained officially silent, though privately supporting the FONOP.
In sum, despite changes in the leadership, proponents of deeper ties with the Unites States, in particular Sr. Lt Gen Vinh and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh are in very strong positions. The trend of improved ties and greater bilateral defense cooperation with the United States is likely to continue, and it certainly will not be reversed or stopped abruptly. Even Trong has changed since taking power in 2012, as seen from his trip to the US in 2015 and the approval of TPP from the Politburo. Vietnam is determined to continue senior level engagement, including participating at the US-ASEAN summit at Sunnylands 15-16 February 2015, as well as potentially hosting President Obama in May 2016.
Vietnam will continue to develop its “omni-directional” foreign policy. Vietnam has developed very close security ties with India, most recently announcing that it will establish a ground station for Indian satellites, giving Hanoi access to geo-spacial intelligence over the South China Sea. India has been training Vietnamese crews for its six new Kilo-class submarines. India has emerged as a key exporter of weaponry to Vietnam, and is increasingly maintaining a greater naval presence in the South China Sea. Hanoi is dispatching a naval vessel to India’s fleet review, the longest deployment in Vietnamese naval history.
Vietnam has also worked towards interoperability with other ASEAN members, many of whom use US-made weapons. Last year, Vietnam paid port visits to the Philippines and Indonesia. It is likely to continue to participate in regional multilateral exercises.
The 12th Congress did re-emphasize relations with Vietnam’s two neighbors, Laos and Cambodia, though for different reasons. Laos is the current chairman of ASEAN, and as such it is already being courted by all sides involved in the South China Sea. The Vietnamese leadership was clearly bolstered by the results of the 10th Congress of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party, in January 2016, which saw the pro-Hanoi Bounnhang Vorachit elected as the new secretary-general. Vorachit has rained concern about Chinese domination of Laos, and has looked to reverse the swing towards China since Beijing bailed out the Lao kip in the 1997-98 financial crisis. Already, US Secretary of State has won a pledge from the new Lao leadership to use its position to counter Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. Vietnam, too, will court Laos, not least by increased military delegations.
Cambodia remains a more difficult case for Hanoi. The Cambodian foreign minister told Secretary Kerry that Cambodia’s position on the South China Sea is unchanged. Hanoi must expect Phnom Penh to continue to obstruct ASEAN unity over the South China Sea. However, with the simmering unrest along the border in summer 2015, Vietnam cannot afford to pay no attention to Cambodia. And as the 2018 general election nears, it is highly likely that bilateral tensions will increase, as all sides in Cambodian politics engage in populist politics, xenophobic nationalism, and scapegoating of the country’s Vietnamese community.
This may explain that of the 22 military officers on the Central Committee, two come from the Border Guards, as well as the commander of the Military District 7 and the military Commissar of Military District 9, both of which abut Cambodia. Two other senior officers on the general Staff have long experience in these two military districts, as well. On the last Central Committee, only two military personnel had experience along the Cambodian border.
There is one area where the appointment of Trong over Dung may see a discernible difference in policy: In mid-2014, Vietnam seemed on the verge of joining the Philippine suit at the International Court of Arbitration (ICA). Top leaders, including the Prime Minister, suggested that it was a less a matter of if, but when. Yet the high level visit of the Chinese State Counselor Yang Jiechi who told Hanoi to “stop hyping up” the dispute, and implicit threats led Hanoi to drop their filing.
In December 2014, Hanoi did file a position paper with the ICA asking that they take Vietnam’s interests into consideration in their ruling. When in October 2015, the ICA rejected China’s contention that the court had no standing and would proceed with the merits of the case, the leadership in Hanoi must have been kicking themselves. Under the leadership of Nguyen Tan Dung, one could have countenanced Vietnam filing a similar suit. But that seems unlikely under the continued leadership of Nguyen Phu Trong, who is unlikely to openly provoke China. And that is truly a setback because it is the legal weakness of Beijing’s claims that gives Hanoi the greatest leverage.
Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea will remain Hanoi’s greatest strategic conundrum. That does not change with the Congress or the election of people Beijing preferred to see in office. Vietnam’s’s border forces reported increased Chinese aggression, including 57 intrusions by boats conducting espionage in 2015 alone.
The irony is that the more conservative members of the leadership always believe that they can use their historical and ideological ties to China to diffuse situations. And yet, they have never been able to get China to reverse course or abandon its aggressive strategies, whether it be putting oil concessions on Vietnam’s continental shelf for tender, placing oil rigs in Vietnamese claimed waters or the construction of artificial islands on low tide elevations. The reality is the leadership selection could actually embolden China to step up its assertive action, knowing too well that the current leadership is less willing to engage the United States and provoke an open confrontation with Beijing.
But the real policy implication of the 12th Congress is this: Vietnamese defense modernization is contingent on sustained economic growth. While the leadership has tried to assuage the international community that economic reforms will continue, most believe that such reforms would be accelerated had Dung won. Vietnam’s military spending increased by 270 percent between 2004 and 2013. Defense spacing accounted for 2.3 percent of GDP in 2013, third in the region behind Myanmar and Singapore. Defense expenditures averaged 2.27 percent between 2004-13. But in terms of per capita military spending Vietnam ranks fourth in the region – a mere $37.6 – placing it behind Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. Vietnamese security is highly contingent on maintaining the highest rates of economic growth in Southeast Asia, which it was able to do in 2013-15, but requires skilled leadership and good policies.
But not all signs are good. The low price of oil, now only contributes 7 percent of the budget, adding to a widening deficit, while the trade deficit and public debt are both increasing. Although the economic reform program is unlikely to be reversed, the cautious leadership of Trong will be unable to seize a window of opportunity availed by Thailand’s continued political stasis and resulting economic meltdown, Indonesia’s economic nationalism and endemic corruption, and Malaysia’s self-inflicted wounds owing to Prime Minister Najib Razak’s scandal plagued administration.
Procurement
So what does all this mean for the VPA’s defense procurement program? Despite the signs that the leadership is looking to maintain party control over the security sectors, this by no means means that there is going to be any reversal of its military modernization program. Vietnam remains committed to field the most modern and lethal military in Southeast Asia. In terms of procurement, Vietnam has done a lot to diversify its weapon sources, and this trend is unlikely to be reversed with the new leadership.
In the past decade, the lion’s share of modernization funds has gone to building up power projection capabilities. The VPA has gotten slightly smaller, and its procurements have been more modest, particularly in small arms. The VPA is looking for contenders to replace its 1960s T-54/55, or to at least upgrade them to a more capable version.
Its defense partnership with Israel is still likely to deepen, far more than people are probably aware of. Vietnam has been producing Israeli small arms under license, and is now producing an Israeli variant drone. Vietnam has also acquired Israeli Spyder AA missile and Accular guided artillery missile, and there are reasons to believe that Vietnam also wants to self-produce these weapon systems.
Apart from the training of submariners in Indian bases, India has recently become a more important arms supplier to Vietnam. In 2014, Vietnam began negotiating the purchase of BrahMos anti-ship missile, co-developed by Russia and India. Vietnam has already been deemed one of the countries friendly enough to India and Russia to possess this weapon; and in mid 2015 reports surfaced that Russia had approved the sale. Also in 2014, India announced that it would extend a $100 million credit line to Vietnam for the purchase of four patrol boats.
Vietnam will take delivery of two more Gepard-class frigates from Russia in 2017-2018, and is negotiating two more. Vietnam has built six Molniya-class corvettesrecently for the Navy and expects to build four more under license.
Gepard class frigate.
Outgoing Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung is still pushing forward with his privatization agenda in his final four months in office. On 3 February, the government announced that it had sold a 70 percent share of Song Cam shipyard to Dutch shipbuilder Damen. Song Cam is the most modern and profitable of the eight subsidiaries of the Shipbuilding Industry Corporation. It produces most of Vietnam’s coast guard vessels and is expected to ramp up production.
As of now, five out of six Russian-built Kilo class submarines ordered by Vietnam have arrived at the Cam Ranh naval base. The first began patrols in the South China Sea in December 2015. Not only has Vietnam acquired these state-of-the-art vessels for its deterrence, but it has also equipped them with offensive capability by being the first country in South East Asia to purchase submarine-launched land cruise missile, the Klub-S. This is the export version of the cruise missile Russia used to bombard ISIS force from the Caspian Sea, launched from Gepard class frigates, which Vietnam possesses. Russia has offered to sell the Klub for Vietnam to equip its Gepard and Molniya vessels, but no official news has been confirmed. Nevertheless, fielding silent submarines with anti-shore cruise missile will surely alter China’s calculation.
Military personnel stand on Russian-made Kilo-class submarines during a celebration of Vietnam’s Navy at Cam Ranh military port May 2, 2015. Photo taken May 2, 2015. Reuters Vietnam.
Vietnam is in the market to purchase new jet fighter to replace its aging fleet of 144 Mig-21s and 38 SU-22s. While there was plenty of speculation that with the lifting of the US embargo, that Vietnam was in the market for US jets, that was unlikely then, and even more so following the 12th Congress.
Vietnam will most likely remain within the Russian orbit of weaponry. It recently purchased another squadron of Russian Sukhoi Su-30s, and there are hints that Hanoi may consider the Eurofighter Typhoon or Gripen JAS-39E jet fighter in a bid to diversify is sources of advanced weapons.
While many in the VPA have been pushing for the purchase of American P8s to bolster its limited maritime surveillance capabilities, the potential backlash from China could result in the purchase of a European variant or even the new Kawasaki P-1 from Japan, as it begins to enter into the global arms global. In 2014, Vietnam purchased maritime surveillance planes from Canada and several Casa C-295 military cargo planes from EADS.
Vietnam has largely pushed for the lifting of the US arms embargo as a matter of principle. While they may purchase niche items that are not available from their traditional suppliers, in particular long range maritime surveillance craft, it is unlikely that there will be a broader based shift to US arms; they are simply too expensive.
Apart from acquiring weapons from abroad, Vietnam has had a strong emphasis on self-producing many of its need. As a result of this focus, Vietnam has been more successful than most countries in acquiring licensing for indigenous manufacture, and has shown that it is ready to move to another non-traditional supplier to achieve this. Indeed, the reason that Vietnam chose Israeli Military Industry Galil ACE family over the traditional Russian Kalashnikov weapons is because it was able to obtain production license for this family. Vietnam has also been able to self-manufacture other type of infantry weapons, such as RPG or automatic grenade launchers.
More special for the Vietnamese Military Industry in 2015, it has succeeded in manufacturing its indigenous version of the Russian Kh-35E Uran anti-ship missile, called KCT-15. The Kh-35 Uran is the mainstay of the Vietnamese Navy, being equipped on all Gepard and Molniya frigates. The KCT-15 can be configured to be carried by fighter jets or naval helicopters that Vietnam currently fields. An anti-ground capable Kh-35 version has also been proposed; if this materializes, it would be a much cheaper option to the expensive Klub-S cruise missile.
An indigenously produced Kh-35E Uran (KCT-15) anti-ship missile, the mainstay of the Vietnamese navy.
Vietnam has also progressed silently but surely in the field of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), especially in satellite and UAV surveillance. In addition to the satellite agreement with India, Vietnam has developed and operated several satellites with US Lockheed Martin and French SAS Atrium, and aims to be able to produce its own indigenous satellite in the next few years. Vietnam is also leasing a Heron UAV from Israel. Viettel Corporation, the VPA-owned telecommunication company, has produced small UAVs itself and is aiming to produce a high altitude long endurance drone with Belorussian cooperation. The UAV HS-6L, unveiled in December 2015, has an endurance of 35 hours and a range of 4,000km and will greatly increase Vietnam ISR capability over the South China Sea. Viettel produceswarning radars to support anti-air missile batteries and recently developed a new C4ISR system for the VPA.
The first time inclusion of Viettel’s Director on the Central Committee may signify both a focus on indigenous production as well as cybersecurity and monitoring.
In general, Vietnam will continue to diversify its weapon sources, and try to improve its self-production capability. Very quietly, Vietnam has emerged as the leading producer of advanced arms in Southeast Asia.
Zachary Abuza, PhD, is Professor at the National War College where he specializes in Southeast Asian security issues. Follow him on Twitter @ZachAbuza.
Nguyen Nhat Anh is a student of International Political Economy at the University of Texas at Dallas. You can follow him on Twitter @anhnnguyen93.
