Preserving the taboo (Need to update nuclear arms control agreements)

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

Preserving the taboo (Need to update nuclear arms control agreements)

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Times have changed, and nuclear treaties should, too: When Donald Trump pulled US out of the INF with Russia, there were fears that dumping the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty would trigger a new arms race. That is not correct, as INF was suited for a 2-power cold-war situation, and not today’s world
• What was the INF treaty? Both US and USSR decided to destroy all their land-based 500-5500 km range missiles, and not to develop any more in the future.[ the nuclear warheads and sea/air launched missiles not destroyed ]
• Why INF treaty? US President Ronald Regan realised that ‘a nuclear war can never be won and must not be fought’. The more than 40,000 nukes with USSR had outnumbered the US ones, and in 1987, both came together for treaty. Europe had become the missile deployment ground – USSR put missiles facing it, and US helped NATO in return.

• Nervous Europeans: As they realised that they’d pay a big price in case of a nuclear war, three talks started –

1. On strategic weapons – leading to START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)
2. On intermediate weapons – leading to INF
3. On nuclear and space talks – to address Reagan’s “Star Wars” programme

• INF hailed as a disarmament treaty: Although it really wasn’t that, since US-USSR both spoke the same language, the world was relieved. Europe wanted to end the stress of another devastation.

• What has changed now?

1. Since 2008, US has accused Russia of violating INF due to its Novator 9M729 missile
2. Russia blames US for deploying missile interceptors in Romania/Poland that can be reconfigured as launchers
3. China already has many missiles in 500-5500 km range and is modernising (so US is worried)

• US’s aggressive NPR: The Nuclear Posture Review 2018 by US indicates aggressive US thinking.

1. Things are worsening for the US, and role of nukes will grow
2. Russia wants to breakup the NATO
3. China is a threat in the short run, and an existential threat in the long-run
4. A 30 year modernisation plan worth $1.2 trillion with new SLCMs (sea launched cruise missiles)

• Great risk of accidental actions: The lines between conventional and nuclear arms too is blurring, with the US having deployed PGS (Prompt Global Strike) solutions using conventional weapons against strategic targets, such asymmetric approaches will greatly increase chances of escalation.
• A changing world: The two-pole nuclear reality has changed into a multi-polar nuclear world, where the US or Russia alone cannot guarantee any stability worldwide. If the New START lapses in 2021, then US and Russia will be unconstrained totally.
• NPT: This is the most successful of all treaties, but is unable to accommodate the 4 outside (India, Pak, NK, Israel). It delegitimised nuclear proliferation, but could not end nuclear weapons.
• What next? The new arms control regimes must factor in today’s political realities, while preserving the nuclear use taboo.
• Summary - The global nuclear arms controls agreements need a big upgradation keeping in mind changed political realities, where US or Russia alone can’t guarantee peace.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.