Latest news with #NuclearSuppliersGroup
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Democrats and Republicans introduce bill on Indo-US nuclear cooperation
Four US Senators (Two Republicans and two Democrats) have introduced a bill to create a whole-of-government strategy for nuclear cooperation and nuclear export with India as an "ally or partner nation" to further the bilateral civilian nuclear deal . "The Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads of other relevant federal departments and agencies, shall establish and maintain within the US-India Strategic Security Dialogue a joint consultative mechanism with the Government of the Republic of India that convenes on a recurring basis," as per the bill. Republicans Jim Risch and Mike Lee are sponsoring the bill along with Democrats Martin Heinrich and Chris Coons. The purpose should be "to assess the implementation of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy, signed at Washington on October 10, 2008; to discuss opportunities for the Republic of India to align domestic nuclear liability rules with international norms... to develop a strategy for the United States and the Republic of India to pursue bilateral and multilateral diplomatic engagements related to analysing and implementing those opportunities." Foreign nuclear power firms had evinced interest in setting up atomic power plants in India after it secured a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group to engage in global nuclear trade. The NSG waiver came after the landmark India-US civil nuclear deal of 2008. However, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 proved to be an impediment for private sector participation. Foreign players termed certain provisions of the law unacceptable and contradicted the international Convention for Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).
Hans India
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Nuclear Dawn: 51 Years Since 'Smiling Buddha' Changed India's Global Standing
Fifty-one years ago, on May 18, 1974, India silently yet dramatically altered the global power balance when it successfully detonated its first nuclear device beneath the sun-scorched sands of Rajasthan's Pokhran. This historic achievement made India the first nation outside the five permanent UN Security Council members to demonstrate nuclear capability. Codenamed "Smiling Buddha," the operation firmly established India's technological prowess, strategic independence, and national determination on the international stage. The Pokhran-I test was executed under extraordinary secrecy during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's leadership. Just one day before the test, she authorized the final step with the simple directive to Dr. Ramanna: "Please go ahead. It will be good for the nation." This followed her initial approval of the project during a BARC visit in September 1972. A dedicated team of 75 scientists and engineers, under the guidance of Raja Ramanna, PK Iyengar, and Rajagopala Chidambaram, had worked meticulously on the project from 1967 to 1974. Their efforts culminated in success when scientist Pranab Rebatiranjan Dastidar pressed the firing button at 8:05 am on that fateful morning. The operation's codename drew inspiration from Gautama Buddha, with the test coincidentally occurring on Buddha Jayanti. Following the successful detonation, Raja Ramanna sent a cryptic message to the Prime Minister stating, "The Buddha has finally smiled." While India officially described the test as a "peaceful nuclear explosion," Raja Ramanna later clarified in a 1997 interview: "The Pokhran test was a bomb, I can tell you now... An explosion is an explosion, a gun is a gun, whether you shoot at someone or shoot at the ground." The international community responded swiftly by establishing the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a coalition of 48 nuclear supplier countries formed to regulate nuclear technology exports. India maintained nuclear restraint for 24 years before conducting five additional tests in May 1998 during Operation Shakti (Pokhran-II) under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. These tests, which included a thermonuclear device, firmly positioned India as the world's sixth declared nuclear power. The 1974 test's legacy remains profound—it demonstrated India's scientific capabilities, established its strategic autonomy, and forever altered the nation's position in global affairs, effects that continue to resonate fifty-one years later.
Jordan Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Jordan Times
Will we see more nuclear proliferation?
CAMBRIDGE — Eight decades have passed since the energy contained within an atom was used in warfare. Yet rather than suffering nuclear Armageddon, the world has achieved a surprising nuclear stability, so far. Equally remarkable, while nuclear technology has spread to many countries, only a small fraction have chosen to use it to develop weapons. The world has benefited from an effective nonproliferation regime, a set of rules, norms, and institutions that have discouraged, albeit haltingly and imperfectly, nuclear proliferation. But can it survive an era of rapid geopolitical shifts? In the 1960s, US President John F. Kennedy predicted that there would be around 25 countries with nuclear weapons by the 1970s. Yet today, there are only nine, because governments took steps to prevent proliferation. In 1968, they negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognized that five states already had nuclear weapons, but secured pledges from others not to develop them. For decades, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sent inspectors to countries developing nuclear energy to ensure that it is used only for civilian purposes. And in the 1970s, US President Jimmy Carter's administration placed a high priority on slowing proliferation, in part through the newly created Nuclear Suppliers Group, whose member states pledged restraint in the export of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology. This non-proliferation regime has become an important part of the world order, but some analysts believe it faces new threats. Even IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi worries about its future. The most visible challenge is Iran's program for enriching uranium above 60 per cent, far beyond what is needed for use in civilian reactors. Grossi estimates that Iran could make a bomb in a matter of months, not years; and if it does develop a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia says it will follow suit and drop out of the NPT. Israel and the United States are threatening to use force to stop Iran, even as the US and Iran engage in new negotiations over limiting Iran's nuclear programme. Beyond this regional challenge in the Middle East lurks a global threat to the nonproliferation regime. After World War II, Germany and Japan limited their own nuclear plans because of their alliance with the US. The credibility of American nuclear deterrence was sufficient to provide them with security, and the same has been true for dozens of other states, both in NATO and in East Asia. But now that the Trump administration is weakening these alliances, it has also weakened America's extended deterrence, prompting others to examine whether they should have their own nuclear weapons. They are well aware that Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, only to be invaded by Russia (which had guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum). Some analysts say we should not worry, because proliferation would have beneficial effects on world politics. Just as nuclear weapons sustained prudence in US-Soviet relations, they contend, so might nuclear weapons stabilise regional power balances today. But this more-is-better attitude would be tenable only if the political conditions were similar. It presupposes stable command-and-control systems; an absence of serious civil wars or destabilising motivations (such as irredentist passions); and discipline over the temptation to launch preemptive strikes during the early stages of a conflict, when new nuclear weapons capabilities are soft and vulnerable. Such assumptions are unrealistic in many parts of the world. Far from enhancing security, the first effects of acquiring a nuclear capability in many circumstances may be to increase one's vulnerability and insecurity. Moreover, even a local, 'tactical' nuclear strike would be a serious breach of an 80-year global taboo. One also must consider the destabilizing roles that nonstate actors could play. Even if the risk of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear device is low, the mere possibility creates severe challenges. The fact that weapons-usable materials can be stolen or sold to rogue states on the black market means that the threat posed by nonstate groups does not depend solely on their technological capabilities. Nor would today's superpowers necessarily be immune from the effects. The wide or rapid spread of nuclear capabilities could affect the global strategic balance and the prospects of a peaceful and just world order in the future. Obviously, political and technical trends will continue to change. But the key question concerns the future of US alliances and extended deterrence. Given that proliferation could be destabilizing, that nuclear weapons do not always enhance the acquiring state's geopolitical position, and that superpowers cannot fully escape the effects, there should be a strong global interest in maintaining the nonproliferation regime. Under the current circumstances, some inequality in weaponry is acceptable to most states because the alternative, anarchic equality, is more dangerous. As long as countries can be made better off without a bomb than with one, a policy of slowing the spread of nuclear-weapons technology will rest on a strong foundation. Realistically, an international regime does not need perfect adherence to have a significant constraining effect. But once erosion of the norms and institutions begins, it may be hard to stop. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., one of America's great scholar/statesmen, has died at age 88. A former US assistant secretary of defense and chair of the National Intelligence Council, Nye, a long-time dean of Harvard Kennedy School, famously coined the term "soft power" to denote the influence that countries can assert through their culture and economies. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025.
Business Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Times
Will we see more nuclear proliferation?
[CAMBRIDGE] Eight decades have passed since the energy contained within an atom was used in warfare. Yet rather than suffering nuclear Armageddon, the world has achieved a surprising nuclear stability – so far. Equally remarkable, while nuclear technology has spread to many countries, only a small fraction have chosen to use it to develop weapons. The world has benefited from an effective non-proliferation regime, a set of rules, norms, and institutions that have discouraged – albeit haltingly and imperfectly – nuclear proliferation. But can it survive an era of rapid geopolitical shifts? In the 1960s, US President John F Kennedy predicted that there would be around 25 countries with nuclear weapons by the 1970s. Yet today, there are only nine, because governments took steps to prevent proliferation. In 1968, they negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognised that five states already had nuclear weapons, but secured pledges from others not to develop them. For decades, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sent inspectors to countries developing nuclear energy to ensure that it is used only for civilian purposes. And in the 1970s, US President Jimmy Carter's administration placed a high priority on slowing proliferation, in part through the newly created Nuclear Suppliers Group, whose member states pledged restraint in the export of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology. Iran a threat This non-proliferation regime has become an important part of the world order, but some analysts believe it faces new threats. Even IAEA director-general Rafael Mariano Grossi worries about its future. The most visible challenge is Iran's programme for enriching uranium above 60 per cent – far beyond what is needed for use in civilian reactors. Grossi estimates that Iran could make a bomb in a matter of months, not years; and if it does develop a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia says it will follow suit and drop out of the NPT. Israel and the United States are threatening to use force to stop Iran, even as the US and Iran engage in new negotiations over limiting Iran's nuclear programme. Beyond this regional challenge in the Middle East lurks a global threat to the non-proliferation regime. After World War II, Germany and Japan limited their own nuclear plans because of their alliance with the US. The credibility of American nuclear deterrence was sufficient to provide them with security, and the same has been true for dozens of other states, both in Nato and in East Asia. But now that the Trump administration is weakening these alliances, it has also weakened America's extended deterrence, prompting others to examine whether they should have their own nuclear weapons. They are well aware that Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, only to be invaded by Russia (which had guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum). Some analysts say we should not worry, because proliferation would have beneficial effects on world politics. Just as nuclear weapons sustained prudence in US-Soviet relations, they contend, so might nuclear weapons stabilise regional power balances today. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up But this more-is-better attitude would be tenable only if the political conditions were similar. It presupposes stable command-and-control systems; an absence of serious civil wars or destabilising motivations (such as irredentist passions); and discipline over the temptation to launch preemptive strikes during the early stages of a conflict, when new nuclear weapons capabilities are soft and vulnerable. Such assumptions are unrealistic in many parts of the world. Far from enhancing security, the first effects of acquiring a nuclear capability in many circumstances may be to increase one's vulnerability and insecurity. Moreover, even a local, 'tactical' nuclear strike would be a serious breach of an 80-year global taboo. Non-state actors One also must consider the destabilising roles that non-state actors could play. Even if the risk of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear device is low, the mere possibility creates severe challenges. The fact that weapons-usable materials can be stolen or sold to rogue states on the black market means that the threat posed by non-state groups does not depend solely on their technological capabilities. Nor would today's superpowers necessarily be immune from the effects. The wide or rapid spread of nuclear capabilities could affect the global strategic balance and the prospects of a peaceful and just world order in the future. Obviously, political and technical trends will continue to change. But the key question concerns the future of US alliances and extended deterrence. Given that proliferation could be destabilising, that nuclear weapons do not always enhance the acquiring state's geopolitical position, and that superpowers cannot fully escape the effects, there should be a strong global interest in maintaining the non-proliferation regime. Under the current circumstances, some inequality in weaponry is acceptable to most states because the alternative – anarchic equality – is more dangerous. As long as countries can be made better off without a bomb than with one, a policy of slowing the spread of nuclear-weapons technology will rest on a strong foundation. Realistically, an international regime does not need perfect adherence to have a significant constraining effect. But once erosion of the norms and institutions begins, it may be hard to stop. PROJECT SYNDICATE The writer, a former dean of Harvard Kennedy School, is a former US assistant secretary of defence and author of the memoir A Life in the American Century (Polity Press, 2024)
Observer
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Observer
Will we see more nuclear proliferation?
Eight decades have passed since the energy contained within an atom was used in warfare. Yet rather than suffering nuclear Armageddon, the world has achieved a surprising nuclear stability – so far. Equally remarkable, while nuclear technology has spread to many countries, only a small fraction have chosen to use it to develop weapons. The world has benefited from an effective non-proliferation regime, a set of rules, norms and institutions that have discouraged – albeit haltingly and imperfectly – nuclear proliferation. But can it survive an era of rapid geopolitical shifts? In the 1960s, US president John F. Kennedy predicted that there would be around 25 countries with nuclear weapons by the 1970s. Yet today, there are only nine, because governments took steps to prevent proliferation. In 1968, they negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognised that five states already had nuclear weapons, but secured pledges from others not to develop them. For decades, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sent inspectors to countries developing nuclear energy to ensure that it is used only for civilian purposes. And in the 1970s, US president Jimmy Carter's administration placed a high priority on slowing proliferation, in part through the newly created Nuclear Suppliers Group, whose member states pledged restraint in the export of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology. This non-proliferation regime has become an important part of the world order, but some analysts believe it faces new threats. Even IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi worries about its future. Beyond this regional challenge in the Middle East lurks a global threat to the non-proliferation regime. After World War II, Germany and Japan limited their own nuclear plans because of their alliance with the US. The credibility of American nuclear deterrence was sufficient to provide them with security, and the same has been true for dozens of other states, both in Nato and in East Asia. But now that the Trump administration is weakening these alliances, it has also weakened America's extended deterrence, prompting others to examine whether they should have their own nuclear weapons. They are well aware that Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, only to be attacked by Russia (which had guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum). Some analysts say we should not worry, because proliferation would have beneficial effects on world politics. Just as nuclear weapons sustained prudence in US-Soviet relations, they contend, so might nuclear weapons stabilise regional power balances today. But this more-is-better attitude would be tenable only if the political conditions were similar. It presupposes stable command-and-control systems; an absence of serious civil wars or destabilising motivations (such as irredentist passions); and discipline over the temptation to launch preemptive strikes during the early stages of a conflict, when new nuclear weapons capabilities are soft and vulnerable. Such assumptions are unrealistic in many parts of the world. Far from enhancing security, the first effects of acquiring a nuclear capability in many circumstances may be to increase one's vulnerability and insecurity. Moreover, even a local, 'tactical' nuclear strike would be a serious breach of an 80-year global taboo. One also must consider the destabilising roles that nonstate actors could play. Even if the risk of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear device is low, the mere possibility creates severe challenges. The fact that weapons-usable materials can be stolen or sold to rogue states on the black market means that the threat posed by nonstate groups does not depend solely on their technological capabilities. Nor would today's superpowers necessarily be immune from the effects. The wide or rapid spread of nuclear capabilities could affect the global strategic balance and the prospects of a peaceful and just world order in the future. Obviously, political and technical trends will continue to change. ©Project Syndicate, 2025 Joseph S Nye, Jr The writer is Professor Emeritus at Harvard University and a former dean of Harvard Kennedy School, is a former US assistant secretary of defence and the author of Do Morals Matter?
