Social Scientist. v 13, no. 145 (June 1985) p. 73.


Graphics file for this page
K. SUBRAHMANYAM, (ed). Nmlwr ProKfemttw and IntefWitwnal Security (New Delhi .l Institute/or Defence Studies & Analyses, 1985), 310 PP, Rs. 150.

EVER since the advent of nuclear weapons, the issue of proliferatiol hag exercised the minds of policy-planners and defence specialists. Despite restrictive laws and procedures, it is a knowa fact that 40 years rfter the atom bombs that wiped out Hiroshima aDd Nagasaki, the spread of nuclear weapons has become an issue of some concern. As of today, the U.S., USSR, France, Oreat Britain, China afe openly acknowledged nucteaf weapons powers with Israel, South Africa and ladia in a list of "undeclared" powers and Pakistan verging on attaining this status or even possibly leapfrogging to the former status. However, the range of possible nuclear weapons^ states is actually quite large encompassing some 17 nations including those listed above, as well as Brazil and Argentina in South America to South Korea and TaiwaA in East Asia and virtually all the West Europearf countries.

From the beginnings ftuclear weapons powers have attempted to impose a a^n-proliferation regime on othet states. This has fceen dfotie through bi-lateral arrangements and secret protocols at fifri and culminate ing in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty sponsored by the US, UK and the USSR in 1968. It has been the contention of India from the very beginning, K-. Subrahmanyam points out, that the treaty is fatally flawed in that it did not seek to prevent thb proliferation of nuclear weapons but addressed itself only to the dissemination of weapons to the non-nuclear states. Equally important from the point of view of equality of states in international relations was the fact that it did not attempt to do away with the special status conferred on the nuriear weapons themselves. In short all it did w^s to confirm the superiority associated with power and prestige conferred on the nuclear weapons powers without any commitment towards inteniational nuclear disarmament.

K. Subrahmanyam has been one of the most consistent add ardent critics of the NOT* and hi3 main plank has beefi to take issue ^vith the contfcairing and burg®0tt$»g vertical pmlifefatioa of nuclear weapons especially in the ease of the two main Audoir weapons states—the IM and the USSR. lathe 15 years that the treaty has been in force, for



Back to Social Scientist | Back to the DSAL Page