SOURCE: AFI
In an era of shifting power dynamics in the Indo-Pacific, a Japanese think tank has put forth a bold proposition: India and Japan should jointly develop a long-range tactical strike capability, with a range of 2,000 to 3,000 kilometers, to establish a “shared deterrence” against China’s growing assertiveness. The report underscores that while the United States already wields Tomahawk cruise missiles and strategic bombers capable of striking Beijing, a collaborative Indo-Japanese effort could reshape the regional security architecture, offering a counterweight to China’s military ambitions.
The idea isn’t just a technical suggestion—it’s a strategic call to action. China’s rapid military modernization, from its hypersonic missiles to its expanding naval presence in the East and South China Seas, has rattled its neighbors. For Japan, the threat looms over its Senkaku Islands, contested by Beijing. For India, it’s the simmering tension along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Himalayas, where the 2020 Galwan clash exposed the fragility of deterrence against a nuclear-armed rival. The think tank’s report argues that a joint long-range strike capability would give both nations the means to hold Chinese military assets at risk, enhancing deterrence without relying solely on the U.S. security umbrella.
A 2,000-3,000 km range isn’t arbitrary—it’s a game-changer. For Japan, it means the ability to target Chinese military bases deep inland, far beyond coastal defenses, from its island chains or naval platforms. For India, it could reach critical infrastructure across China’s western and southern regions, complementing its existing ballistic missile arsenal like the Agni series, which already boasts ranges up to 5,000 km. Together, this capability would create a networked deterrence posture, forcing Beijing to think twice before escalating tensions.
The U.S., with its Tomahawks (range exceeding 1,600 km) and bombers like the B-21 Raider, already holds this leverage. But as the think tank notes, an Indo-Japanese partnership would distribute the burden of deterrence, reducing dependence on American intervention and signaling a unified regional resolve. It’s a nod to “integrated deterrence”—a concept gaining traction in U.S. strategy—where allies pool capabilities to complicate an adversary’s calculus.
China’s military rise is undeniable. Its DF-26 ballistic missile, dubbed the “carrier killer,” boasts a 4,000 km range, threatening U.S. naval assets and regional bases alike. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has fortified its anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategy, aiming to keep adversaries at bay in a conflict over Taiwan or the South China Sea. For India and Japan, both non-nuclear powers in this context (India’s nuclear arsenal notwithstanding), conventional long-range strike options offer a credible response short of escalation to the nuclear threshold.
Japan’s pursuit of such capabilities isn’t new. Since 2022, Tokyo has committed to acquiring “counterstrike” systems like the Tomahawk and an upgraded Type-12 missile, with ranges up to 1,600 km, under its National Security Strategy. India, meanwhile, has tested the Nirbhay cruise missile (1,000 km range) and is developing longer-range systems. The think tank’s vision pushes this further, urging a joint leap to 3,000 km—enough to cover vast swathes of China from multiple vectors.
What would this partnership look like? Technologically, it could mean co-developing a cruise or hypersonic missile, leveraging Japan’s precision engineering and India’s cost-effective missile programs. Japan’s experience with standoff weapons and India’s expertise in ballistic trajectories could yield a hybrid platform—say, a sea-launched missile deployable from Japan’s Izumo-class carriers or India’s Arihant-class submarines.
Operationally, “shared deterrence” implies coordinated targeting and intelligence-sharing, possibly under a trilateral framework with the U.S. or the Quad (including Australia). Imagine a scenario where Japanese and Indian forces, backed by U.S. satellite data, jointly hold PLA bases in Tibet or Hainan at risk. This multi-angle threat could dilute China’s A2/AD advantage, forcing it to defend a broader perimeter.
The proposal isn’t without challenges. For Japan, constitutional constraints under Article 9 limit offensive capabilities, though recent reinterpretations have loosened these shackles. Public and political resistance to militarization remains a hurdle. India, meanwhile, must balance its strategic autonomy—a cornerstone of its foreign policy—with deeper alignment with Japan and the U.S. Cost is another factor; developing and deploying such systems could strain budgets, especially for India, despite its growing defense spending.
Technologically, a 3,000 km missile demands advanced propulsion, guidance, and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) capabilities. Japan’s nascent ISR architecture and India’s reliance on foreign satellites could delay progress. Integration with U.S. systems, while beneficial, risks entangling both nations in Washington’s broader rivalry with Beijing, potentially escalating tensions.
The think tank’s report isn’t just about hardware—it’s a vision for a stronger Indo-Japanese axis. Bilateral ties have deepened through joint exercises like Dharma Guardian and Malabar, but a shared strike capability would elevate this to a strategic partnership with teeth. It aligns with Japan’s push for a “free and open Indo-Pacific” and India’s “Act East” policy, binding their fates against a common challenge.
Critics might argue it fuels an arms race, provoking China further. Yet, deterrence isn’t about aggression—it’s about credibility. A China unchecked by regional powers could embolden its territorial ambitions, from Arunachal Pradesh to the East China Sea. The U.S. already provides a nuclear backstop, but a conventional Indo-Japanese capability could handle gray-zone conflicts or limited escalations, preserving stability without crossing the nuclear line.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.