A new atomic arms race is stirring and the world is growing more dangerous
Eighty years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a new nuclear arms race is brewing, fueled by Trump's trade war and threats to withdraw US defense commitments. Asian nations, once reliant on US deterrence, are now considering developing their own arsenals, increasing global instability.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
Eighty years ago this August, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of people. Those acts helped to end World War II but also ushered in the nuclear age.In 2025, a new atomic arms race is stirring, this time not provoked by Russia, China or North Korea — who have been ramping up their arsenals — but instead by President Donald Trump 's trade war, and his threats to withdraw the US defense umbrella. The result is a world growing more dangerous, not just for Asia, but for Americans too.The security architecture that helped prevent conflict from weapons of mass destruction is at risk of unravelling. For decades, Asian nations have relied on Washington's commitment to deterrence. That's no longer guaranteed.Long-time US allies, like Japan and South Korea, are calculating the cost — both economic and political — of developing their own arsenals. India and Pakistan both have a growing supply of warheads, potentially inflaming an already volatile conflict made worse by recent tensions in Kashmir.Trump insists that Washington has received the short end of the stick from defense deals, and that America's protection is keeping the world safe while other economies benefit more. He has a point — but is also ignoring historical lessons.The aftermath of Washington's atomic bombings prompted a recognition that such a tragedy must be avoided at all costs. So deep was the soul-searching in American society that the goal of every US president since Harry Truman has been to limit rather than encourage the spread of these weapons. Much of this was achieved through negotiated agreements and treaties.The policies have worked. Only nine countries now possess such arsenals, even though many more have the ability to build a bomb. But Trump is ushering in a more dangerous era. On the campaign trail in 2016, he suggested that Japan and South Korea might need to develop their own capabilities. Comments like that are influencing public opinion. A 2024 survey by the Korea Institute for National Unification showed six in 10 South Koreans now favor having them.If Seoul opts for homegrown nukes, this would lead to a domino effect, note associate professors of political science at St. Francis Xavier University, Jamie Levin and Youngwon Cho. Japanese public sentiment has been deeply opposed because of the nation's painful past, but it has a full nuclear fuel cycle, allowing it in theory to fashion thousands of bombs in as little as six months, according to experts.India and Pakistan are among the most worrying players. The risk of a conflict increased this week after after a terrorist attack in Kashmir killed dozens in some of the region's worst violence in years. So far, they have stuck to diplomatic measures as retaliation, but there is always the concern of escalation.Even in Southeast Asia, a relative safe zone, the risks have become much more pronounced. The 1995 Treaty of Bangkok established a Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, banning members from development, manufacture, acquisition or possession. But if larger nations ramp up their arsenals, the spillover effect in Southeast Asia could force others to either look into developing their own technology, or find a new defense umbrella. Washington's unpredictability has created a leadership vacuum that Beijing will be keen to fill.Rather than failing to offer credible security guarantees, the US should engage with governments in Asia and address their defense ambitions. Under the Biden administration, a bilateral initiative called the Nuclear Consultative Group in 2023 was launched with Seoul, which helped to quell some anxiety. Efforts like this should be expanded to other allies like Japan.Convincing countries to stick with US deterrence strategies would be wise. Smaller nations watch what bigger countries do, not what they say. The US still has the opportunity to play global stabilizer and shouldn't cede that role to China.The world once looked to Washington to keep it safe. In 2025, that trust is fraying. It's in America's interest — not just Asia's — to rebuild it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Maxine Waters tries to enter federal building in LA, gets the door slammed in her face
Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters arrived at the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Los Angeles, on Sunday. When she attempted to enter the building, an officer slammed the door in the face. A video of the incident has since gone viral on social media. In the clip, Waters can be heard saying she was there to 'check on' SEIU President David Huerta, citing her 'congressional authority' to do so. In another clip, she is seen questioning a National Guard member: 'Where is someone that's in charge…an elected official has arrived to go in to check out what's going on. Who can I speak to?' Also Read: Los Angeles riot: LAPD declares citywide tactical alert amid anti-ICE protests - What does it mean? Waters later spoke to the media outside the building, claiming that President Donald Trump was attempting to implement martial law. Addressing Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard amid ongoing riots, Waters said, 'I don't know why they are here with guns. What are they gonna do? Who are they going to shoot and for what. Are they going to shoot a kid running away just because they are afraid of him? Are they going to shoot protesters because you don't like what they are saying? Why the guns? Why are the guns here?' She continued: 'We are a sanctuary city and I know Trump doesn't like us. We know he is trying to use us as an example. He is trying to goad us so that he has the martial law. He also alluded to civil war and one point.' On Saturday, Trump ordered the National Guard into Los Angeles amid widespread protests against immigration raids. The move came despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. Trump addressed the situation on Sunday. Speaking to reporters in Morristown, New Jersey, he said: "We're gonna have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden."
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Montek Singh Ahluwalia at Idea Exchange: ‘China challenged the US and what's been unleashed is the weaponisation of tariffs'
Montek Singh Ahluwalia, economist and former Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission of India, on India's way around US tariffs, the need for less protectionism and why trade with China needs careful thought. The session was moderated by Ravi Dutta Mishra, Principal Correspondent, The Indian Express. Ravi Dutta Mishra: In the multiple trade negotiations that are underway, India may be forced to lower tariffs. Will there be an adverse effect on our manufacturing as we open ourselves to Western countries? Are we ready for it? President (Donald) Trump has described India as a tariff king and, on this, he is right. Our tariffs are much higher than most other developing countries. I have consistently said our tariffs are too high and they should be reduced in our own interest. This process was started in the 1991 reforms and was continued through successive governments, including the Vajpayee government. The economy did well in this period and our export performance also improved. Unfortunately, the policy was reversed in 2017 and our exports have done poorly since then. Indian manufacturers are uncompetitive due to a variety of reasons such as high tariffs, bureaucratic controls and logistical deficiencies. However, this means they are not competitive at the current exchange rate. Depreciating the currency is one way of making them more competitive. It helps those competing against imports and also helps exporters. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: How do the Trump tariffs impact the world and the US economy? That's a difficult question to answer since we don't know where the tariffs will end. The US has imposed 10 per cent on all imports and 25 per cent on selected items. In addition, it has imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs at different levels for different countries. The reciprocal tariffs have been paused until July 9 pending the outcome of negotiations that are underway with different countries. We don't know how far these tariffs will be modified. However, it is quite clear that the US will end up with protection levels much higher than in recent memory. It will also have different tariffs for the same product for different countries, which is a departure from the most-favoured nation principle. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: Do you think there is any rational basis for what the US is doing? Frankly, no. The US has been concerned about two developments for some time but what they are doing is not the solution for either of them. One long-standing concern, which resonates with the US public is the hollowing out of old industries in the so-called 'rust belt'. This is actually a natural process in which industries that had become uncompetitive have shifted to other countries that are more competitive. Against this so-called 'loss', the US has also gained massively because it became dominant in the financial sector and the tech sector. Both sectors have produced an expansion in high-paying jobs. The logical way to deal with the loss of jobs in the older industries would have been to encourage new industries, where the US is competitive, to expand in the states being hollowed out and to reskill the workforce in these areas. On US tariffs | The US tariff action has created a great deal of uncertainty. This may well be a deliberate tactic to give theM a bargaining advantage by unsettling trading partners but this will affect investment, including FDI The second US concern is the remarkable rise of China. They clearly thought that integrating China into the global system would make China more like other democracies but that didn't happen. China has gained enormously from globalisation but it has also explicitly stated a confrontational objective of challenging the US economically, technologically and also militarily. The Biden administration had adopted a targeted policy of constructing trade restrictions on China, especially in sensitive areas. What has been unleashed now is a much broader weaponisation of tariffs against many more countries. This seems to be driven by the spurious argument that they are running trade surpluses. Most economists don't think one should worry about bilateral trade balances, and especially trade balances in goods while leaving out services. The US/EU position exemplifies the problem. The US is running a large trade deficit against the EU in goods but it has an almost equal sized surplus in services. Taking goods and services together, the US/EU trade is balanced. The problem is the US is not just any country. If the US were a small country, then we could point out its errors and simply refuse to enter into any such negotiations. But the US is the largest economy in the world and the largest importer and therefore, in principle, the largest market. So you cannot ignore it. Therefore, even though their position is not theoretically defensible, most countries are trying to see what they can get out of it through negotiation. Ravi Dutta Mishra: Our unwillingness to open up to China led to us abandoning RCEP. Can we just open up to the West and ignore RCEP? That's a very important point. Asia is where most of the growth will take place in the future and we should certainly not ignore it. As you said, we backed out of signing the RCEP agreement because our producers lobbied that they can't compete if duty-free access is given to Chinese imports. It is true that China is widely regarded as a non-transparent trader which subsidises its exports in many ways. However, if this was the main reason for not signing RCEP, we should apply to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trade Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This grouping does not include China but covers other important Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea. We have free trade agreements with these countries but they are old and limited arrangements. We need to enter into deeper arrangements which also align behind the border standards. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: We have seen more than three decades of reforms and liberalisation. Are there certain sectors which still require protection? Whenever an industry is unable to compete with imports, it will demand for protection to save it. If you go into it more deeply, they will tell you they can't compete because they have to cope with poor infrastructure, poor logistics, high cost of power, burdensome procedures, poor access to bank credit, etc. All this is true. But the solution lies in rectifying these problems, not conceding protection. That takes time but that is why lowering of duties in a free trade agreement is always phased over time. We have to realise that while granting protection is a simple solution, it only helps the industry protected, while hurting others, all of whom suffer from the same handicaps. Exports are particularly badly hit by protection because it only raises the domestic cost structure, making exports less competitive. I should point out that our exports have done very poorly in the past five years and this also the period when we started raising import duties. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: What do you think of the PLI type schemes which are designed to encourage the domestic industry. Do you see this as tantamount to protection or are they stepping stones for the industry to prepare for global competition? PLIs are a way of protecting the industry by extending a subsidy. It has the advantage of providing support without raising the price of the protected product as would happen if duties were raised. The cost is borne by the budget. The example of East Asia is often cited to support the idea that industries can be encouraged through subsidy in the initial stages, which allows them to become competitive. In the East Asian cases, the success of the industry support effort was ultimately judged on whether they became internationally competitive. If they failed to penetrate export markets as expected, the subsidy was withdrawn. Our PLI schemes do not have any such linkage with export performance. On trade with China | where China has become the only source (of import), There is a case for increasing domestic production. There is also a case for diversifying supply linkages to other sources It is, perhaps, too early to pronounce judgment on PLIs, but we should conduct a serious independent evaluation of these schemes. This task should not be performed by the ministry running the scheme. It should be entrusted to another body, such as NITI Aayog or the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, for an independent view. Ministries always support whatever schemes they are running or at most suggest some marginal improvements. That's why third party evaluation is needed. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: What should be our trade policy vis-à-vis China? China is the second-largest economy in the world and under normal circumstances we should view it as a potentially important trade partner. However, it is also true that we have serious security concerns about China. We have to address these different types of problems. First, there is the problem of non-transparent subsidisation which may hurt our domestic industry. This is best handled by an efficient and speedy system of imposing countervailing duties to counter unfair trade practices. The second problem relates to situations where we have become unduly dependent upon China, enabling it to hurt our economy by denying us exports that we want. The pharmaceutical industry is an example. We pride ourselves on being the pharmacy of the world because we have genuine strength in formulations and other products. However, we have become excessively dependent on China for supplying active pharmaceutical ingredients. This is not a case for rejecting Chinese imports as such but we should reduce dependence on them by developing our own sources domestically or if there are other supply sources available, we should diversify. There is a case for increasing domestic production, and introducing a PLI, if necessary. There is also a case for diversifying supply linkages to other sources. A similar problem arises in the case of various rare earths and minerals, which are needed for our energy transition and where we don't have domestic reserves. China has already weaponised this monopoly. The solution in such cases clearly lies in building access to these items wherever they are available from other countries and perhaps encouraging our own industry to build production capacity elsewhere. A third problem arises in the case of products, particularly advanced electronic products that can be infested with malware. For example, the use of untrusted products in key systems such as the telephone system, the air traffic control system, the electric grid, the banking and payments system, etc. present the possibility of a cyber attack which could impose serious damage. Cyber attacks are happening even without compromised equipment and we need heightened vigilance in these areas but compromised products increase our vulnerability. In such cases, countries have to resort to some combination of relying on domestic supply or importing only from 'trusted sources'. I would emphasise that these considerations should not lead to extreme positions excluding all Chinese imports. Solar cells are a good example. Solar cells are not like chips in the sense that you cannot interfere with the functioning of a solar cell from the outside. China has built capacity more than double the world's current demand for solar chips, as a result of which the price of solar chips has collapsed globally. Importing these chips will allow us to expand our solar generation capacity rapidly and reduce the cost of solar electricity. Should we benefit from this or insist on domestic production of chips at a higher cost? We need to evolve a carefully tailored policy that allows us to derive the benefits of trade with China, without making us vulnerable to pressure. On indian tariffs | President Trump has described India as a tariff king and he is right. Our tariffs are much higher than most other developing countries. I have consistently said they should be reduced in our own interest Sandeep Singh: While the Trump tariffs have caused a disruption, is there some positive effect for Indian manufacturing? The only possible positive effect we can expect is if the US wants to discourage imports from China-centred supply lines and shift to supply lines based on more trusted partners. If India is treated as a more trusted partner, then it creates an opportunity. Of course, the extent of benefit will depend upon whether we can attract the FDI and technology needed to fit into the altered supply chain. Some shifting out of China has been taking place but the countries that benefited were Vietnam and Malaysia, not India. A good example of what looks like a success is the possibility that India-made iPhones will serve a large part of the US market. I have seen reports of President Trump saying he wants Apple to produce all iPhones for the American market domestically. That amounts to insisting on 'reshoring' rather than 'friend shoring'. We should explain that iPhones produced in India are only assembled in India and almost half the value consists of IP which accrues to Apple. The phone also has thousands of components produced in other countries. The assembly stage is actually a low-tech activity, although it creates a lot of jobs which is important. It also gives us a hold from where we could progressively supply more components. If assembly is performed in the US at US wages, it will substantially increase the cost of the phones. Hopefully, these considerations will be used by Apple to defend its India strategy. Aggam Walia: You mentioned deregulation and now the ball is in the states' court. They have to lead the charge. How do you assess this view? Also, many states, both publicly and privately, have been asking for a greater share of the Centre's taxes. Do you think that is tenable? As far as deregulation is concerned, there has to be both Centre and state agenda. The Central government has said they are setting up a committee to recommend a deregulation package. I hope we see early outlining of the proposed agenda, a discussion of what is proposed and then an early implementation. The scope for deregulation at the state level is also great. It would be a great idea if some CMs took the lead and set up committees that could help identify critical areas where deregulation can be implemented. It would help small and medium enterprises the most, since they are most burdened by complex procedures. Ideally, an institution like NITI Aayog could document what the Centre has actually done on deregulation and put pressure on the states to follow suit. On the devolution of taxes, the 16th Finance Commission, is the Constitutional body responsible for making recommendations and they will look into it. I feel the states definitely need more devolution of taxes and it is better to have larger automatic transfers rather than rely on the Central government schemes where the Centre funds part of the cost but designs the scheme. Frankly, the more advanced states are now much more capable and they need more resources. There is a linked issue here and that is that the states don't delegate downward to local bodies. Unfortunately, this can't be done through the Finance Commission. It has to be done by the state government delegating downward. Very few states are willing to do this.
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Los Angeles riot: Dramatic scenes at Alameda and Temple; LAPD sends out multiple alerts
Dramatic scenes unfolded at Almeda and Temple on Sunday amid citywide anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), meanwhile, issued multiple alerts asking rioters to disperse from the area. Videos from the scene showed multiple members of the crowd confronting National Guard troops. 'Officers are reporting that people in the crowd are throwing concrete, bottles, and other objects. Arrests are being initiated. A DISPERSAL ORDER has been issued for the area of Alameda and Temple. Those at Alameda and Temple must leave the area,' the LAPD noted on X, platform formerly known as Twitter. Read More: Donald Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles. What's happening there? Authorities also declared unlawful assembly in the area. 'The Incident Commander has declared an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY in the area of Alameda between Temple and Aliso St. All persons must leave the area or be subject to arrest,' another alert added. In Los Angeles, an unlawful assembly is when a group's actions threaten public safety, like rioting or obstructing police. Declared on Sunday, amid protests, it allows LAPD to disperse crowds and arrest non-compliant individuals. Several locals, meanwhile, posted on social media about officers firing rubber bullets at the crowd in Almeda and Temple. Read More: Los Angeles riot: LAPD declares citywide tactical alert amid anti-ICE protests - What does it mean? 'If you're at the protest in DTLA, be careful around Alameda and Temple, they're firing rubber bullets,' one person tweeted. In its latest traffic advisory, the LAPD said: '101 freeway between Alameda and the 110 freeway is closed due to demonstrators walking onto to the freeway. Alameda is closed between 2nd St and the 101 freeway. Los Angeles St is closed between 1st St and the 101 freeway.' '⚠️Traffic Advisory⚠️ Demonstrators have walked onto the 101 freeway blocking SB lanes of traffic. All traffic both NB and SB lanes have been stopped,' another alert read.
