E-Paper
Indo-US nuclear deal & minimum nuclear deterrence
After implementation of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories, the world order has been effectively divided into the five privileged nuclear haves who can do whatever they feel like with their nuclear arsenals and the rest of have-nots who must abide by this treaty or face sanctions on dual use and high technology.
After implementation of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories, the world order has been effectively divided into the five privileged nuclear haves who can do whatever they feel like with their nuclear arsenals and the rest of have-nots who must abide by this treaty or face sanctions on dual use and high technology. India is facing these restrictions since 1974 when it exploded its first nuclear device. The recently signed Indo-US nuclear deal, if approved by US Congress, will be first India-specific window of opportunity that will allow India also to enjoy most of these privileges without being a signatory to NPT. Instead of grabbing this bonanza by both hands, the doubting Thomas’ in India’s political establishment are crying foul.
The refrain of some in the Indian political class is that this deal will effectively put a ceiling to any further nuclear testing by India and combined with Fissile Material Cut Of Treaty (FMCT) will be put paid to any further nuclear ambitions of India as also its Minimum Nuclear Deterrent (MND) capability.
After 1998, nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, the non-proliferation Ayatollahs of the US and other developed countries have formed a 45-country Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) who only supply nuclear-related items, including dual technology items to those countries that have signed the NPT. The recipient countries are prohibited from conducting any nuclear tests. Section 129(1)(A) of the US Atomic Energy Act is also on the same lines
In other words if India wants this deal to be approved by the US congress, so that the ongoing high technology export restrictions are removed, then it will have to forego all future nuclear tests. Will it be a very major price to pay? With oil prices in the world hitting the all-time high of $75 a barrel, if we want to sustain our current rate of growth of almost eight per cent and take it to 10 per cent then we will have to go in for an alternative source of energy. Only other option is nuclear energy.
We have abundance of coal deposits but it has high ash content. To make it commercially viable again, we need the US that has the necessary coal technology but it comes under dual use restrictions.
With our known Uranium deposits, we can sustain only unto 10,000 MW of energy production. Beyond this, we will have to import the nuclear fuel from abroad. In reactor building technology we, with our own resources can build reactors of 540 MW capabilities only while the norm in the world is 1,000 MW capacity. In other words we will have to accept the fact that in energy generation field we are hedged in from all sides and have very little options but to go for this deal. Today, we have only 19 per cent of our nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards. If this deal goes through then by 2014 we will be placing 14 of our reactors amounting to 65 per cent of our reactor capability under safeguards. We will still retain eight nuclear reactors accounting for 35 percent of our nuclear capability for military uses. These will be centered around Bhabha Atomic Research Center and the Kalapakkam Complex. Reportedly India has about 80-100 medium size nuclear warheads. Pakistan is estimated to have about 40-60 and Israel about 100.Both India and Pakistan, after their 1998 nuclear tests have imposed unilateral moratorium on any further nuclear tests.
With the world having become global village, thanks to Information Technology, this moratorium amounts to effectively foreclosing all options to any more nuclear tests. The World opinion now will not permit us to do any more tests.
Israel has conducted no tests but it has a large nuclear arsenal. Modern day technology allows cold tests to be carried out within laboratories without much fan fare. We will have to master this art.
Unlike Cold war period when the US and Russia accumulated thousands of nuclear warheads, India with its declared MND doctrine does not need to do so. In MND there is no need for a large nuclear arsenal. What is needed are fool proof and accurate delivery systems and such dispersed nuclear warheads storage dumps that cannot be destroyed in the first nuclear strike of the enemy.
The enemy has to be convinced that should he be fool hardy to first use nuclear weapons then he will be hit back, come what may, with nuclear weapons. It is the threat of effective use of Nuclear weapons and not the actual use, which constitutes the Minimum Nuclear Deterrent. Further, there can be no fixed figure as to how many warheads and of what yield constitutes a MND? It depends on the target country. Nevertheless one can take a safe bet that no country will like to be nuked even if it is with only one warhead.
An ideal example of how MND works in the modern days is North Korea. It has a few nuclear devices and long range delivery means. Despite its bluster, even US takes North Korea seriously. In the foreseeable future, should there be a nuclear confrontation, India in all likelihood will only have China and Pakistan to deal with. India has sufficient credible MND against them.
To enhance its MND, all India has to do currently is to develop an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile of global reach and acquire /build nuclear powered submarines with underwater missile firing capability. To achieve this, India needs access to high technology that this Indo -US deal enables India to obtain. So instead of harping on false prestige we may accept the condition of no more tests and FMCT. In any case they are applicable de facto.
When we feel that we are strong enough to challenge the world and be a super power, what stops us from throwing all these treaties into the dustbin on one pretext or the other and do what we want to do? Military history is replete with such examples. We should never forget that a bird in hand is better than two birds in bush.
