The threat of nuclear terrorism should not be underestimated because it can have catastrophic effects if and when realised. Nor should the subject matter be politicised beyond a certain point because of its strong espousal by the United States, which has raised suspicions about whether the issue could be used as yet another instrument for asserting American hegemony. Institutionalisation of multilateral actions must therefore be supported and nuclear summit meetings must become the forums for addressing the doubts and concerns relating to the international initiatives.

The third Nuclear Security Summit will be held in The Hague, Netherlands in March 2014. This visionary nuclear diplomacy will be facing both old and new questions at its third meeting. The basic question relates to the future of the summit process, which has made a significant contribution to international security in a very short span of time. The summit process, however, may serve it better, and the strengthening of the regime must be continued through the next two summits. However, with or without the summit process, the nuclear security regime has to be strengthened.

The Nuclear Security Summits are at a midway point but have not yet reached their full potential of eliminating weak links in the global nuclear security system. The first two summits, in Washington and Seoul, have had a beneficial impact by identifying common objectives, galvanising international action and reducing stockpiles of vulnerable nuclear materials. However, improving nuclear security governance is an important new issue. It could be introduced at the 2014 summit in The Hague and be a springboard for action at the 2016 summit in the US.

This article attempts to make a realistic assessment of the danger of nuclear terrorism. While acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of an act of terrorism employing either an improvised nuclear device or a violent attack against a nuclear installation causing spread of lethal radioactivity, it also highlights the complexity of the challenges likely to be confronted by any would-be nuclear terrorist.

Security experts the world over agree that nuclear terrorism is one of the greatest threats to international peace and security in the 21st century. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been more than 20 confirmed cases of the illicit or unauthorised trafficking of fissile materials. Fissile material for more than 100,000 additional nuclear weapons is spread across the globe.

India has been dealing with terrorism for several decades, and is therefore constructively involved in all genuine exercises for countering the menace. As terror groups are expected to use weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), India fully supports the legal and other operational measures and mechanisms adopted by multilateral and international organisations to mitigate the risk of WMD terrorism. A resolution has been steered in the United Nations General Assembly to gain international support for fighting WMD terrorism.

The issue of nuclear security has several dimensions including security of nuclear materials and facilities, export controls, security of technologies and development of technologies that are proliferation-resistant. Each of these dimensions needs examination from an applicable perspective. India looks at nuclear technology and nuclear materials primarily as a resource for meeting a part of its requirements for electricity.

The 21st century is witnessing a renaissance of civil nuclear energy, particularly in Asia. At the same time, this century is also witnessing a rise in acts of terror, using newer and more lethal tools. The attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 and other terror incidents have forced the international community to pay more serious attention to the possibility of terror groups using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

Disarmament and non-proliferation are rightfully viewed as two sides of the same coin: the two imperatives that need to be met if the prospect of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is to be realised. Although the existence of a link between the two concepts is obvious, the exact nature of this connection is perhaps not as clear. The central question here is whether it is politics or strategic realities that shape states’ nuclear options and by implication, the two-fold road to global zero.