The international community inside and outside the Conference of Disarmament is underscoring the need for concluding a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT). The Indian government, for a long period, has been sponsoring the idea. Notwithstanding the international stagnation, the issue has been instigating periodic debate in India on the Indian approach. The periodic revival of the issue requires that India revisit its policy on fissile material production as well as its approach towards a possible FMCT.
Nuclear energy is undergoing a global renaissance. While nuclear energy has been contributing between 14 and 16 per cent of the total electricity in the world in recent years, most of the countries that are operating nuclear power reactors are expanding and/or reviving their nuclear energy development programmes, including countries such as the US and the UK. At the same time, several new countries and regions, many of which are rich in other energy resources, are also opting for nuclear energy.
The debate around strategic autonomy offers a conceptual framework to understand how India, as an emerging power, tries to negotiate autonomy in its security and military relationship with the United States. In the context of Indo-US rapprochement, the dynamics of power relations are not commensurate with India's will to keep an acceptable degree of autonomy.
Has the power and influence of the United States declined in recent years? Does the current global recession, the outcome of the US invasion of Iraq and the resilience of the Taliban in Afghanistan provide adequate rationale to profess waning of US influence? Has China's power and influence grown to an extent that can effortlessly put it on the top of the global hierarchy of power? Is the US–China interdependence equitable enough to work as a deterrent against unbolted conflict?
Command and control of nuclear weapons was the edifice upon which great power nuclear strategy was based. Empirical Cold War research later proved that this edifice was, in fact, only a power keg. Therefore, US non-proliferation-minded analysts propounded logical reasons for their claim that new nuclear nations will be unable to demonstrate prudence in nuclear weapons management. The unique Indian case, pronounced from the organisation theory perspective, proves to the contrary.
That a nuclear taboo exists indicates the divide between conventional and nuclear war. It is no wonder then that India – though a nuclear weapons power – deems nuclear weapons not for military use but for deterrence purposes. These are, therefore, taken as political weapons. Seeking to deter use of nuclear weapons against India or its forces anywhere, India's nuclear doctrine promises ‘massive’ punitive retaliatory strike in case of nuclear use by its enemy. This is evidence that the Indian leadership is cognizant of the special status of nuclear weapons.
In order to construct an operational nuclear device, terrorists need to obtain the requisite fissile materials - Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) or plutonium. It has been proved that, generally, it is much simpler to devise a crude nuclear bomb with HEU than with plutonium. Hence, terrorists can have 'reasonable confidence' in the performance of weapons-grade HEU bombs. The magnitude of the threat of nuclear terrorism from Pakistan's HEU-based nuclear weapons programme is assuming alarming proportions. However, adequate preventive steps can be taken to minimize the danger.
In the aftermath of North Korea's second nuclear test and the launch of three short-range missiles on May 25, 2009, followed by the launch of seven ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan on July 4, there has been widespread speculation on Japan's principled position on non-proliferation and disarmament and whether it will abandon its nuclear abstinence and acquire nuclear capability. This possibility has been echoed recently by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
After eight years of governance by a Republican Administration, the United States elected a Democrat as its president. The Democrat President, Barack Hussein Obama, assumed presidency and appointed several key officials to implement his agenda. Though some believe that democracy forces political parties to evolve a common agenda and towards consensus on several key issues, there are others who see differences between the Republican agenda and those of Democrats.
