India: Say NO to Nuclear Explosive Testing
- rkbhonsle
- 6 hours ago
- 4 min read
In the last fortnight or so, two events as diverse as they can be once again reminded the World of the apocalypse of a nuclear war.
One lesser-known release, perhaps, in strategic circles was the political thriller “A House of Dynamite” by Academy Award-winning director Kathryn Bigelow, which traced a scenario of a nuclear weapon headed for the United States Mainland.
In the perilous world we live in today, fiction is mirroring a future reality.
The second and starkly similar defining yet real event was the declaration by the U. S. President, Mr Donald Trump, that America would resume nuclear testing.
Mr Trump, en route to Asia for a high-stakes meeting with President Xi Jinping, wrote on his social media platform Truth Social, “Because of other countries' testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”
“On an equal basis” may mean that the United States will replicate testing by other nuclear-weapon powers, such as missiles, rather than detonate a nuclear weapon.
Mr Trump’s reasons for testing were nations such as Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan, having conducted what he claimed as nuclear activities, such as an arsenal surge by China and Russia's Poseidon and Burevestnik deployments.
In reaction to Mr Trump’s announcement, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a high-level meeting, called on the Russian Ministries to examine the U.S. President's statements and prepare for possible nuclear weapons tests.
"I am instructing the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry... the special services and relevant civilian agencies to do everything possible to collect additional information on the issue, analyse it at the Security Council and make agreed proposals on the possible start of work on the preparation of nuclear weapons tests," Putin said in televised remarks.
Defence Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin that recent U.S. remarks and actions meant it was "advisable to prepare for full-scale nuclear tests" immediately and suggested that Russia's Arctic testing site at Novaya Zemlya could be a site at short notice.
General Valery Gerasimov, head of the General Staff, told Putin: "If we do not take appropriate measures now, time and opportunities for a timely response to the actions of the United States will be lost, since the time required to prepare for nuclear tests, depending on their type, ranges from several months to several years."
Indeed, the World’s two premier nuclear powers, with thousands of nuclear weapons between them, were presumed set to commence nuclear “explosive” testing, defying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT], though they are not signatories to the same.
Apart from the United States and Russia [which withdrew from the CTBT in 2023], other nuclear-weapon powers, such as China, India, and Pakistan, are not signatories.
Thus, there is no international legal obligation on these not to carry out nuclear tests.
Many of these countries frequently conduct simulation testing and trials of long-range missiles.
North Korea is the only country which has carried out explosive tests recently in 2017.
Clearly, the sequence of statements from the United States and Russia would reveal a similar response from other states in a strategic competition, and most certainly from those in open conflict, such as India and Pakistan.
In fact, the debate in the India Continent has commenced vigorously with many strategic analysts, former military commanders and even academia otherwise known for their liberal views pitching in for nuclear explosive testing.
Given that social media provides a platform for individuals to share their thoughts on a wide range of topics, from the weather to nuclear weapons, the views have received widespread publicity; yet, it has also exposed the limited state of knowledge on atomic issues among those who have contributed to the debate.
Many of the worthies could also be reflecting the establishment view where influencers are a medium to test or shape public opinion.
The argument in the Indian context is manifold. The more tenuous point is that if others are testing, India should too.
Others claim the ambiguity of India’s 1998 tests, particularly the Hydrogen chain, and the need to trial the current state of atomic weaponry, having undergone multiple transitions from the one almost three decades ago.
The validity of simulated tests is also a concern.
Moreover, in the opacity of India’s strategic deliberations, the state of nuclear arsental is unclear.
No doubt these are valid arguments, but India will have to prepare for an avoidable chain reaction from adversaries – China and Pakistan, with certainty that the latter will carry out its own test with assistance from its all-weather partner.
In the current state of India-Pakistan relations and the flux in the national leadership of that country, nuclear explosive testing will set off a chain reaction [pun intended] which we can ill afford geopolitically as well as geoeconomically.
There is a moral and ideological argument, but that will only set off the wolves to berate it in a realist World.
Thankfully, Mr Trump did not include India when he accused Russia, China and Pakistan of testing, but the Indo-US Nuclear Deal of 2008 does have unstated safeguards which cannot be overlooked.
Yes, India needs to carry out a nuclear explosive test, but under specific strategic circumstances where the tilt in the windmills dictates an atomic scenario, and we have to go beyond trials of missiles and simulated tests as a case for national survival and not just to ape others or gratify hardliners. Today, we are far away from such a situation.
Perhaps wiser counsel prevails, and self-restraint rather than brinkmanship is the approach adopted in nuclear testing.
Comments