Introduction

The launch of a nuclear-capable BrahMos supersonic cruise missile into Pakistan’s Mian Channu in March 2022 by the Indian Air Force (IAF) stirred significant controversy. The IAF recently responded to a Delhi High Court verdict seeking more details. These details betray either an inadvertent or deliberate launch rather than a spurious accidental launch, per Indian claims. There is a fine difference between an inadvertent and accidental launch. As new information about the incident also shows, inadvertent actions occur due to carelessness and lack of attention and consideration.

Conversely, accidents happen by chance or without an intentional plan, regardless of someone’s care or attention to detail. This study rules out accidental launch and offers implications of either inadvertent or, most likely, deliberate targeting of Pakistan during peacetime. It was an event that has no precedent in the nuclear age, and despite the prevalent haze, it is essential to dissect the event for India and other nuclear powers to take heed of in the future.

What is New Information on the Brahmos Missile Incident?

Since 9 March 2022, the IAF has faced significant challenges in providing a satisfactory explanation for the accidental launch of a nuclear-capable BrahMos missile. This controversy deepened when Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma, one of the officers implicated, took legal action against the IAF in the Delhi High Court. He accused the IAF of unfairly blaming him and terminating his service.

The IAF court reported that the three-member ‘Combat Team,’ consisting of Group Captain Saurabh Gupta, Wing Commander Sharma, and Squadron Leader Pranjal Singh, was guilty of multiple errors and oversights that led to the missile’s launch. In response to the proceedings in the New Delhi Court, the IAF and state-controlled media disseminated selectively curated information regarding the conduct of the Combat Crew:

‘Combat Crew [knew] that the combat connectors of combat missiles are connected to junction box, [but] failed to intervene to prevent the Mobile Autonomous Launcher’s commander from committing an unsafe act of launching Combat Missile… resulting in a launch of missile into the neighboring nation, thereby causing potential threat to any airborne/ground object/personnel and also causing damage to the reputation of [IAF] and the nation at large and a loss of Rs 24,90,85,000 to the government exchequer.’

The IAF further disclosed that ‘the convoy commander of the road convoy, which was to move to a location as part of the inspection, failed to ensure safe transit of the convoy by not ensuring disconnection of combat connectors of all missiles loaded on the mobile autonomous launcher before movement.’ The IAF court of inquiry held that there were violations of the so-called ‘Combat Operations Standard Operating Procedures’ of March 2021.

Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma had petitioned the Delhi High Court, pleading that ‘he was in no position to avert firing of the missile.’ Instead, he ascribed the blame on Air Commodore JT Kurien and Squadron Leader Pranjal Singh for ‘ignoring and over-riding the safety precaution popups’ and ignoring the ‘bright and conspicuous red color warning regarding the danger of firing a live weapon.’ It is worth noting that Sharma called BrahMos a ‘live weapon.’ Thus, this incident can definitely not be classified as ‘accidental.’

The IAF rejected Wing Commander Sharma’s charges, saying that Air Commodore Kurien ‘was not responsible for the operations undertaken by the unit.’ IAF added, ‘All activities had taken place inside the Mobile Autonomous Launcher in Sharma’s presence, and he was a witness to the actions being taken by the Operations Officer.’

How is this Development Significant?

As highlighted in the previous CISS Strat View (CSV) on the March 2022 BrahMos incident, the unintended or deliberate launch of the BrahMos missile could have had severe consequences. On that day, Pakistan, which had detected the missile, could have retaliated, escalating tensions. Although Pakistan only possesses subsonic cruise missiles, India’s newly acquired S-400 Triumf systems, some stationed in Punjab near Sirsa, could have intercepted a Pakistani counterattack. Such eventuality risked triggering a sequence of events potentially leading to war.

India has deployed the S-400 systems against Pakistan and China. Its missiles, designed to intercept aircraft and subsonic cruise missiles at various ranges and altitudes, remain untested in real-world scenarios. S-400’s 9M96E, 9M96E2, and 40N6 missiles can intercept aircraft and subsonic cruise missiles at 40, 250, and 400 kilometers ranges up to an altitude of 30 kilometers. If the incident on March 9 was a planned act to also test S-400 systems, Pakistani pragmatism and restraint prevented that from happening.

A deliberate missile launch by India to gauge Pakistan’s reaction could dangerously be misinterpreted as Islamabad’s restraint and incapability, which could be exploited in future. Such a miscalculation, aiming to test new military technologies and anticipate Pakistan’s countermeasures, could have catastrophic outcomes. There is no way to predict how Pakistan will respond in future.

However, few guesses could be made. For instance, Pakistan could also ‘Launch on Warning (LOW)’ after detecting the BrahMos heading into its territory – a strategy from the Cold War era, entailing a preemptive counterstrike upon confirmation of an incoming attack. This approach aims to deter adversaries from considering a first strike by ensuring a guaranteed retaliatory capability.

India’s evolving military doctrine signals towards resuming thermonuclear testing – the development of advanced missile systems including MIRV technology, ballistic missile defense systems, third-largest fissile material stocks in the world, and sea-based assured second-strike capability underscores India’s shift towards a potentially aggressive preemptive doctrine and first-strike capability.

Preemptive actions aimed at neutralizing imminent threats require sophisticated early warning systems and reliable verification mechanisms to act swiftly. However, the risk of false alarms or undetected attacks could inadvertently provoke a conflict.

Given the close proximity of Pakistan and India, the feasibility of a LOW strategy is questionable, as missile flight times are significantly shorter compared to the distances between the United States and Russia. American literature suggests that an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) could travel between Moscow and Washington in up to 30 minutes, providing a narrow window of less than 10 minutes for decision-making under threat. As a defensive measure against adversary’s preemption, a nuclear power could consider emulating Russia. Moscow developed the Perimeter system (also known as Dead Hand) as a fail-safe measure, ensuring the capability for a retaliatory strike even if the country’s leadership and communication networks are compromised. While intended as a security measure, the system carries risks of accidental activation and the potential for escalating conflicts, underscoring the precarious balance of nuclear deterrence.

What is the Evidence against Accidental Launch?

To present the evidence logically, this section begins with an introduction to the BrahMos missile system, followed by a detailed examination of its components, safety protocols, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged accidental launch. Finally, an analysis that questions the accidental nature of the launch is presented. Available online sources have been searched for this assessment.

BrahMos missile system, developed jointly by India and Russia, is a nuclear-capable supersonic cruise missile known for its speed, precision, and power, capable of being launched from submarines, ships, aircraft, or land platforms. The IAF version has been adapted for air launch capabilities, adding strategic flexibility and operational advantage to the IAF’s capabilities.

The land-based IAF version of a BrahMos missile battery typically includes missile launch vehicles, a command post for operational control, support vehicles for logistics and maintenance, and communications equipment to ensure secure and reliable communication between various components and higher command echelons.

A critical component of the BrahMos missile system is the combat connectors and the junction box. Combat connectors are interfaces that enable communication between the missile system and its launcher’s control systems for command inputs, status monitoring, and activation signals. The junction box acts as a central hub for electrical and data connections, crucial for the missile’s ability to adapt its flight path and targeting in response to commands or new intelligence.

These combat connectors are engaged or activated at specific times during the missile’s preparation and flight phases, playing a crucial role in ensuring the missile receives initial targeting data, system checks, and status updates. Even once launched, these connectors might continue to provide real-time data and receive mid-course corrections.

During transportation for maintenance or upgrades, connections might be made differently for diagnostic checks, software updates, and system tests. Safety protocols during these procedures are stringent to prevent any unintended activation of the missile’s systems.

Advanced missile systems like BrahMos incorporate multiple safety measures, including mechanical and electrical safeties, coded arming sequences, and launch authorizations, to prevent accidental launches. Fail-safe mechanisms typically include multiple authorization codes, electronic locks, and physical disabling when not in operation, minimizing the risk of accidental firing.

This detailed technical background on BrahMos raises the question that why was the Combat Team transporting the missile in ‘live state’ for a so-called ‘inspection?’ Logically, the missile should have been transported in an ‘inert state.’ Despite these elaborate safety measures in place, India claims that an accidental launch occurred, highlighting protocol and safety measures breakdown. This explanation seems a flimsy excuse and cover up for a deliberate launch.

Missiles are typically transported in a non-operational state, devoid of fuel and secured with safety mechanisms, a status known as inert condition. However, Wing Commander Sharma spilled the beans in his petition to Delhi High Court stating that they were transporting a ‘live weapon,’ a term that signifies an alarming readiness for immediate action. This revelation shows that the target data related to Mian Channu was pre-programmed into the launcher, marking it as a predetermined target within the IAF’s strategic framework. Hence, it was not an accidental launch.

Unlike conventional armaments, a cruise missile is engineered with unmatched precision, designed to hit its specified target with surgical accuracy, leaving nothing to chance. This distinction underscores the grave implications of deliberately launching a missile.

The transportation of sophisticated missile systems like BrahMos involves stringent safety protocols, including physical and electrical safeguards and strict handling procedures to prevent damage or accidental activation. The missiles are often transported in a non-operational mode, emphasizing the improbability of an accidental launch under normal safety protocols. Hence, the probability of a crew’s error leading to an accidental launch is extremely low.

If the missile was in transit to a specified location for ‘an inspection,’ the Combat Team would have implemented stringent safeguards to ensure the missile’s integrity, aiming for an exemplary inspection outcome. None of that happened.

To reach the target, BrahMos missile employs a sophisticated fusion of inertial navigation and satellite guidance, tapping into satellite guidance systems like GPS or GLONASS, and may engage radar homing for pinpoint accuracy during terminal phase. India claims that the missile has unmatched precision in striking both terrestrial and maritime targets. Hence, IAF’s explanation of an ‘accidental’ launch lacks credibility. It appears that Wing Commander Sharma and his two colleagues were unjustly singled out to bear the brunt of a deliberate incident.

Are There any Related Incidents?

Although not direct precedents to India’s launch of the BrahMos missile, several related incidents offer lessons and insights into the complex dynamics of strategic stability, the importance of robust safety measures, and the potential consequences of mismanagement or accidents involving sophisticated missile systems. Each incident highlights different aspects of the challenges faced in the management and operational security of military ordnance and missile systems.

Minot Air Force Base Incident (2007)

The inadvertent loading of live nuclear warheads onto a B-52 bomber illustrates severe lapses in nuclear weapons handling procedures. This incident calls attention to the need for stringent security protocols, regular audits, and checks to ensure the safe and secure handling and storage of nuclear and other advanced military ordnance.

Kursk Submarine Disaster (2000)

While primarily an accident involving a malfunctioning torpedo rather than a missile launch, the Kursk disaster illustrates the catastrophic risks associated with the mishandling or malfunctioning military ordnance. This incident emphasizes the need for rigorous safety protocols, regular maintenance, and comprehensive training for personnel involved in the operation of complex weaponry systems.

Norwegian Rocket Incident (1995)

Mistaking a scientific rocket for an incoming attack nearly triggered a nuclear response from Russia. This incident highlights the risks of misunderstanding and miscommunication in an environment of heightened alertness and suspicion. It stresses the importance of establishing and maintaining reliable and direct lines of communication and mechanisms for crisis management and de-escalation between neighboring states, especially those with nuclear capabilities.

Titan II Missile Explosion (1980)

The explosion caused by a fuel leak within a missile silo underscores the risks inherent in the management of aging missile systems. It highlights the necessity for regular inspections, maintenance, and upgrades to aging weapons platforms and the importance of immediate and effective response mechanisms to prevent accidents from escalating into disasters.

What are Lessons to Learn?

From the abovementioned incidents, a few lessons can be drawn about strategic stability between Pakistan and India.

• First, establishing direct, reliable communication channels for crisis management and information sharing is crucial to prevent misunderstandings and misinterpretations that could lead to escalation.
• Second, implementing and adhering to stringent safety measures, regular maintenance schedules, and comprehensive personnel training can minimize the risks of accidents.
• Third, being open about military exercises, missile tests, and other activities can reduce the chances of misinterpretation and inadvertent escalation.
• Fourth, developing and agreeing on protocols for managing incidents, accidents, or misunderstandings can help prevent escalation and foster stability.
• Fifth, ensuring that all safety measures, handling procedures, and operational protocols are regularly reviewed and audited can help identify and rectify potential security lapses.

If India continues to claim that the BrahMos missile was accidentally launched on Pakistan, it underscores the need for reflection on these lessons and work towards enhancing regional strategic stability, especially considering the advanced nature of military capabilities and the potential for misunderstanding or accidents to escalate into conflict.

What are the Conclusions for a Better Path Ahead?

The 9 March 2022 incident revealed Indian behavior unbecoming of a nuclear power. This paper has illuminated significant gaps in India’s command and control and the introduction of fail-deadly technologies in the Indian Ocean Region that the US expects New Delhi to police on its behalf. This starkly contrasts with the expectations of a state with strategic assets of such magnitude and sensitivity.

This incident underscores the paramount importance of stringent oversight and management, especially in peacetime, to prevent any unintended consequences that could escalate the broader security dilemmas.

Given the sophisticated systems involved, one might logically presume the likelihood of malfunctions and accidents to be exceedingly low. This assumption is grounded in the premise that advanced missile systems like the BrahMos are designed with numerous fail-safes and redundancy measures to mitigate the risk of unintended launches.

However, the occurrence of such an incident, despite these sophisticated safeguards, exposes the unreliability and flawed nature of the missile system. Should the potential for failure remain within the bounds of possibility, albeit indeterminate, it significantly erodes the credibility of the BrahMos missile system.

The March 9, 2022, launch of the BrahMos missile could also result in erosion of trust among potential buyers of BrahMos and impact its marketability to nations such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South Africa, and notably, the Philippines, which may reassess its USD 375 million worth of procurement following events that transpired mere months after a significant acquisition.

Given the complexity of the BrahMos missile system and the stringent safety protocols purportedly in place, the assertion of an accidental launch seems implausible. This detailed examination of the system’s components, functionality, and operational protocols suggests that the incident was a deliberate act.

The new information casts a shadow of doubt over the official explanation and seems to indicate that the Wing Commander and his two other team mates were scapegoated, If proven, such actions would not only besmirch the reputations of those implicated but also precipitate a crisis of confidence and loyalty within the military ranks.

India’s poor management of its strategic assets during peacetime engenders apprehension about its conduct under crisis conditions. Contrary to India’s image in the West as a rational actor with a professionally competent military, the incident in question exposes a grave Indian weakness. This interpretation is critical for international observers and allies alike, as it challenges the reliability and predictability of India’s strategic behavior – a cornerstone for regional security and strategic partnerships.

This episode should prompt India to critically reassess its strategies for testing adversaries’ thresholds and rigorously verify its doctrines and technologies. India could take three steps to build missile systems’ safety protocols and technical safeguards.

Firstly, enhancements to the missile’s control systems are imperative to preclude malfunctions leading to unintended launches. Secondly, reinforcing the cardinal importance of adhering to all operational procedures and safety protocols during the handling and operation of missile systems is crucial. Lastly, an increased emphasis on training and drills for personnel tasked with operating these systems is essential to ensure they are fully prepared to address any anomalies and prevent procedural lapses.

While India endeavors to rectify its behavior and address the issues plaguing its BrahMos missiles, potential purchasers are advised to either seek alternative, more reliable weapon systems or await substantive improvements from New Delhi. This cautionary stance is prudent, given the serious ramifications of operational inconsistencies and the paramount importance of reliability in strategic military assets.