BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20220101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20230901T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20230901T053000
DTSTAMP:20261029T014124
CREATED:20231223T130848Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130737Z
UID:62913-1693546200-1693546200@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Report on State of Nuclear Disarmament in the World Jointly organised by MP-IDSA and Indian Pugwash Society
DESCRIPTION:On 1 September 2023\, Manohar  Parrikar-Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) in collaboration  with the Indian Pugwash Society (IPS) organised a Roundtable on the “State of  Nuclear Disarmament in the World.” The roundtable was Chaired by Ambassador  Sujan R. Chinoy\, DG\, MP-IDSA and consisted of eminent experts Prof. Amitabh  Mattoo (Professor\, CIPOD\, SIS\, JNU)\, Lt. Gen. Amit Sharma (Retd.) (former  Commander-in-Chief of India’s Strategic Forces Command)\, and Dr. Rajiv Nayan (Senior  Research Associate\, MP-IDSA). Scholars from the MP-IDSA were in attendance\, as  were distinguished guests from the IPS. \nExecutive Summary\nThe topic of nuclear disarmament remains very relevant in today’s  climate. Nuclear rhetoric by Russia against Ukraine and the West has rekindled  the global discussion on nuclear weapons\, and raised questions on efforts to  achieve disarmament. 78 years after the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima\, a  nuclear weapons-free world remains a pipe dream\, most poignantly marked by the  modernisation of arsenals being undertaken by countries such as Pakistan and  China. Deterrence is considered indispensable for most nuclear weapons states\,  while countries such as North Korea also see them as a means to ensure regime  survival. At the same time\, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction  (WMDs) by non-state actors is a growing risk. Emergent risks\, such as the  emergence of AI and the Internet of Things (IoT)\, further make it imperative to  promulgate joint initiatives\, yet consensus on disarmament remains elusive due  to core political\, economic and strategic divergences among the key actors. \nDetailed Report\nAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy delivered  the Welcome Remarks where he introduced the Speakers\, and laid the context for  the Roundtable. He then made some introductory remarks\, wherein he noted that  the topic of nuclear disarmament remains very relevant in today’s climate. The  Joint Statement issued by the five permanent members of the United Nations  Security Council last year emphasised that nuclear weapons are relevant only to  deter aggression and prevent war. He also noted that 78 years after the first  atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima\, a nuclear weapons-free world remains a pipe  dream\, most poignantly marked by the modernisation of arsenals being undertaken  by Pakistan and China.  \nAmb. Chinoy went on to enumerate  the key disarmament efforts made by countries so far\, and introduced the  audience to some of the risk factors that surround the issue\, such as non-state  actors obtaining nuclear weapons\, states seeking nuclear weapons as a means to  ensure regime survival\, and the emergence of critical new technologies such as  artificial intelligence and big data that significantly complicate nuclear  strategy planning. In light of all these events\, the Chair pointed out\, India  has continued to maintain its position of No First Use (NFU) of nuclear  weapons. India continues to have an unblemished record on non-proliferation\,  and has floated a host of UN initiatives that are still discussed by various  bodies in that organisation. Above all\, India is clear that “now is not the age  of war”; peaceful dialogue is necessary to solve any and all conflicts.  \nAfter setting the stage\, he then turned  over the floor to Prof. Amitabh Mattoo to provide his perspective. Prof. Mattoo  commenced by demarcating the three areas on which he would reflect. These were: \n\nWhat is       the Pugwash Society\, and what is its role?\nWhat is       the current state of nuclear disarmament?\nWhat is       the relevance of these thoughts on India?\n\nThe Speaker then took the  audience on a brief tour of the history of the Pugwash Conference\, commencing  in 1955\, when British philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Albert Einstein  wrote a manifesto-cum-letter to the US President outlining the nightmare of  nuclear war. This manifesto essentially became the raison d’etre of Pugwash\, when twelve scientists got together at  the eponymous town in Canada\, and adopted the manifesto as their mission  statement\, setting up the Pugwash Conference as a result. The aim of the organisation  was to “rediscover our humanity at the cusp of the apocalypse”. In India\, the Atomic  Energy Commission of India was key in supporting the aims of Pugwash\, while Shri  K. Subramanyam brought it to MP-IDSA during his tenure as Director of this  organisation.  \nTurning to the state of nuclear  disarmament in the world\, the Speaker informed the audience that the “Doomsday  clock” maintained by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is the closest it has  ever been in history to midnight (which signifies global extinction after  nuclear war) after the Russian threat to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.  Looking at history\, however\, the Speaker noted that the Cuban missile crisis of  1962 brought the clock to two minutes before midnight\, but despite the threats\,  the world survived. This was characterised by the Speaker as heartening news.  \nThe Speaker highlighted the point  that the number of warheads in the world is at an all-time low: whereas the  Cold War period saw approximately 60\,000 warheads held by the nuclear weapons  states (NWS)\, now there are approximately 13\,000. Of these\, the bulk are held  by the US and Russia\, whereas the other nuclear powers combined form not even a  fraction of this tally. Also\, before the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT)  was signed\, it was commonly assumed that 25-30 nuclear weapons states would  exist\, but because of the NPT\, very few countries possess the capabilities  necessary to produce nuclear weapons. Meanwhile\, several countries have given  up their nuclear weapons programmes\, and the NPT has been extended  indefinitely. \nHowever\, the Speaker noted\, the world  is still not a safer place. He cited leading nuclear strategy researcher Scott  Sagan’s contention that complex organisational structures create redundancies\,  which can interfere in nuclear decision-making\, by generating delegation  issues. On the other hand\, having a single key person is also dangerous\, as it  can create unaccountable power structures within the state structure. Another  concern is the threat of use of nukes\, such as the one issued by Russia in  2022\, marking the first time such a threat has been issued since US General  Douglas MacArthur’s threat to use nuclear weapons on North Korea during the  Korean War. A third issue revolves around the modernisation of Pakistan and  China’s nuclear arsenals. Though India has hitherto maintained a consistent  posture of NFU\, with an emphasis on developing a nuclear triad (with ground-\,  air- and sea-launched nuclear weapons) to ensure minimum vulnerability\, is  there enough reason to revise this nuclear doctrine given the moves by China  and Pakistan?  \nFinally\, before wrapping up\, the Speaker  noted that in an age of realism\, India is at risk of forgetting its wisdom from  the past. In particular\, he pointed to Lord Krishna’s advice to Arjuna on the  eve of the latter’s use of the Brahmastra (the ultimate weapon) to destroy his  enemies\, which the Speaker argued could be especially valuable in determining a  truly Indian way forward. \nThe Chair thanked Prof. Mattoo  for his perspective\, and invited Lt. Gen. Amit Sharma (retd) to offer his  perspective. Lt. Gen. Sharma began by outlining the three issues listed below which  would be key to the rest of his discussion.  \n\nThe       logic of non-use of nuclear weapons\,\nWhy       disarmament is not moving forward\, and\nWhat is       the way forward.\n\nThe Speaker cited historian  Michael Jordan on the logic of the Allies while they were planning their attacks.  The Speaker also cited Thomas Schelling as propounding that the logic of  nuclear restraint is a realisation of the enormity of what the decision to bomb  Hiroshima entailed. He gave the example of the Cuban missile crisis\, where  despite significant pressure on both leaders from their respective staffs\,  President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev ultimately backed down  from pressing the nuclear button. Even in Vietnam\, the US ultimately did not  use nukes\, accepting a “strategic” defeat instead\, because of the effect of the  decision made in 1945 to use the bomb. Thus\, the nuclear decision is not a “gung-ho”  decision\, and checks and balances must exist. \nHowever\, over time\, these checks  and balances are fading\, as younger generations emerge without having  personally experienced nuclear war. The Speaker offered the outcomes of some surveys  of youth in the United States\, where youth in both Japan and the United States  were unable to answer basic questions about the events of 1945. Therefore\, the Speaker  argued that it is high time to create an awareness of nuclear holocaust among  young people so that the memory and knowledge of the effects of the atomic bomb  do not fade away.  \nIn terms of disarmament the Speaker  noted that that there have been many treaties over the years\, but there is  doubt as to their effectiveness. In 1986\, there were 66\,000 nukes in the world\,  while today there are 12\,700 nukes. Yet\, each of these 12\,700 weapons can  destroy the world many times over\, as they are more lethal\, more accurate and  more destructive. These days there are 16 warheads in each missile\, each on a megaton  scale of destructive yield (whereas the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons only had  kiloton yields). Thus\, the world faces a grave danger if somebody decides to use  a nuclear weapon in today’s day and age.  \nDisarmament is thus a good idea\,  but an idealistic one. The Speaker noted that since only nine countries possess  nuclear weapons today\, the nuclear taboo seems to be intact. He also gave the  example of South Africa\, which gave up its weapons of its own accord. On the  other hand\, the Ukraine War’s impact on countries like South Korea and Japan’s  nuclear posture remains an open question. The intent of these countries to  nuclearize is debatable\, but public support is there in both countries.  \nWill anyone get rid of their  nuclear weapons? The Speaker noted that as nuclear weapons bring power and  prestige\, no country is likely to let go of its trump card. Even if any were to  do so\, there is still the problem of trust to deal with: some nuclear weapons  might be kept hidden away\, while the technological knowledge would still exist.  Thus\, while all countries support denuclearisation in their doctrine\, but the  chances of it actually happening are slim. \nThus\, the way forward might lie  with risk reduction and restraint. The Speaker offered some suggestions in this  field\, especially noting the effect of public awareness using visual media as a  powerful tool\, with short clips on effects of nukes as a possible way to reach  younger audiences. The aim should be to affect young people\, so that glib talk  of tactical nuclear weapons and limited bombing are exposed for the fallacies  they are. Another good move would be to have a declared nuke policy. The Speaker  noted that when it comes to nuclear weapons\, surprise is not a good thing. Thus  it is always wise to declare a country’s intentions in advance.  \nIn the ideal case\, the Speaker  noted that a universal NFU should be the next step in building trust\, as it is not  too difficult a step for countries to take. The majority of NWSs are proponents  of restraint. If these six powers can be brought together to agree on universal  NFU\, the ensuing mutual vulnerability would create detente. Then\, it would be a  matter of trying to build up trust and restraint. With these words\, Gen. Sharma  ended his remarks.  \nThe Chair thanked the Speaker for  his remarks\, and invited Dr. Rajiv Nayan to share his perspective. Dr. Nayan  started by discussing the new film on Robert Oppenheimer\, and argued that  Oppenheimer stands today as a symbol of the dilemma of nuclear weapons.  \nThe end of the Cold War raised  some ideas that nuclear weapons were now going to be a thing of the past. However\,  the current situation has raised other questions\, principal among which is  whether nuclear disarmament is feasible or desirable. The Speaker argued that  nuclear disarmament is desirable\, as all powers adhere to that norm with some  exceptions. However\, the accomplishment of the goal remains a far-fetched idea.  He offered a critique of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons  (TPNW)\, signed in 2019\, and also outlined India’s objections to the treaty.  \nWhy is there no disarmament in  the world today? Despite there being no fear of reprisal\, no state has used  nuclear weapons in its conflicts. This\, the Speaker argued\, has created an  environment of complacency. The NPT crisis also played a part in this\, as it  has become difficult to getting an outcome document approved in recent years.  The Tenth Review Conference faced the disappointment of issuing no outcome  document due to Russia’s opposition. However\, since no non-nuclear weapons  state has left the NPT\, it can be said that the regime is in crisis but not  collapsing. Thirdly\, nuclear weapons\, as of now\, pose no personal threat to the  great powers. The Speaker offered here the examples of the Chemical Weapons Convention  and the Biological Weapons Convention. The Chemical Weapons Convention was  negotiated and finalised only when the United States was afraid of the  countries of West Asia acquiring such weapons. On the other hand\, the  Biological Weapons Convention was concluded when the leading powers realised  the redundancy of biological weapons in the national stockpile. Fourthly\, the US  in its recent Nuclear Posture Review raised its concern that several states may  decide to go nuclear in response to threats from one or other of the great  powers\, a sea change in attitudes from a nation that was previously ruthless in  the suppression of nuclear weapons. Fifth\, disarmament as currently conceived  is a project championed mainly by civil society in new countries. Western civil  society fails to push the disarmament agenda among Western nuclear weapons  countries. They are thus widely perceived to have used their rhetoric to disarm  other countries\, not the key Western countries. \nOn the topic of China’s NFU\, the Speaker  argued that there is a gap between precept and practice. Informally\, China is  revisiting its NFU policy. Since 2004\, apparently\, an informal doctrine is in  circulation\, which looks like a replica of the Russian doctrine as for the  conditions to use nuclear weapons. However\, the Chinese currently deny the very  existence of such a document. It is thus an open question whether China would  go for launch on warning if the situation is right\, a hypothesis the Speaker  noted was possible. There would also be the complex issue of whether a joint  force of Chinese and Pakistani soldiers fighting a war with India in future  would be willing to countenance the use of nuclear weapons\, given that Pakistan  does not have NFU as its doctrine\, whereas China does. While concluding\, the Speaker  cautioned that India needs to send a tough message at this juncture if it is to  ensure that such a development does not come to pass.  \nAmb. Chinoy thanked Dr. Nayan for  his remarks\, and then opened the floor for questions and comments. Amb. Saurabh  Kumar asked whether there was anything in the offing regarding the integration  of AI and nuclear weapons systems. He also wished to know the essence of the  US’ statements given in its NPR\, as cited by Dr. Nayan. \nDr. Rajiv Nayan answered Amb.  Kumar’s question on the NPR and US position by informing the audience that one  paragraph in the document mentions events in Ukraine causing a rethink on denuclearisation  among countries. This can be interpreted as saying that countries today have a  powerful rationale for nuclearisation. He also answered Amb. Kumar’s question  on AI and nuclear weapons by noting that the issue was currently being  considered\, and nothing practical had emerged yet.  \nGp. Cpt. Rajiv K. Narang\, Senior  Fellow\, MP-IDSA\, asked whether it was true that China has NFU only against  countries with which it does not have a border. \nLt. Gen. Sharma answered Gp. Cpt.  Narang’s question by informing the audience that China’s NFU holds to everyone  without exception. He added that though China is not believed on this point\,  there is a logic to it\, as the Chinese are following Mao’s line on credible  minimum deterrence (CMD). The modernisation and expansion of their arsenal  comes out of a need to develop enough weapons to achieve CMD.  \nWith that\, the Chair ended the  discussion with a Vote of Thanks.  \nThe report was prepared by Dr. Arnab Dasgupta\, Research Analyst\,  MP-IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/report-on-state-of-nuclear-disarmament-in-the-world-jointly-organised-by-mp-idsa-and-indian-pugwash-society
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR