Explore a curated selection of UPSC Mains Topic Wise Questions dedicated to International Relations, specifically focusing on Nuclear Policy. Delve into a diverse array of questions meticulously designed to deepen your understanding and preparation for the UPSC Main examination. This resource offers a structured approach to mastering key concepts essential for comprehending and addressing nuclear policy issues on a global scale. Whether you’re a novice seeking foundational knowledge or an advanced candidate refining your understanding, these questions provide valuable insights and practice opportunities. With a strategic emphasis on topic-wise questions, aspirants can enhance analytical skills and develop a comprehensive understanding of nuclear policy dynamics. Elevate your preparation, grasp essential insights, and optimize your performance in the UPSC Mains with proficiency in nuclear policy within the realm of International Relations.
Q1. Differentiate and state the significance of Pokharan | and Pokharan II. (2000, 15 Marks)
Differentiate:
- Pokharan I (1974): Classified as a “peaceful nuclear explosion” by India. Used a plutonium device with a yield estimated between 8 and 18 kilotons. Primarily a scientific experiment to demonstrate India’s nuclear weaponization capability.
- Pokharan II (1998): Conducted after India voluntarily declared a moratorium on further nuclear testing. Used a thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb) and a fission device, signalling a significant advancement in India’s nuclear arsenal.
Significance:
- Pokharan I:
- Marked India’s entry into the elite club of nuclear-powered nations.
- Served as a deterrent against potential threats, particularly from China.
- Sparked international condemnation and led to sanctions against India.
- Pokharan II:
- Demonstrated India’s thermonuclear capabilities, elevating its deterrence posture.
- Further strained relations with neighboring countries and the international community.
- Led to a renewed focus on non-proliferation efforts and dialogue between India and Pakistan.
Q2. What are the prospects of CTBT? (2000, 2 Marks)
Answer: CTBT’s future remained uncertain in 2000. India, Pakistan, and North Korea hadn’t signed, hindering universality.
In 2000, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) had been signed by a majority of countries, but it had not yet entered into force. Three key countries – India, Pakistan, and North Korea – had not signed the treaty, which raised concerns about its effectiveness in preventing future nuclear tests.
Q3. Differentiate between Explosion and Implosion. (2000, 2 marks)
Answer: An explosion is a violent outward expansion caused by the rapid release of energy in a confined space. This energy can come from a variety of sources, such as chemical reactions, nuclear reactions, or physical processes like rapid heating. Implosion is the opposite of explosion, and it occurs when a force acting on the outside of an object causes it to collapse inwards. This can happen due to a vacuum or a sudden decrease in pressure.
Q4. Outline the salient features of India’s nuclear policy and explain the reasons for India’s refusal to signthe C.T.B.T. (2001, 15 Marks)
Answer: Salient Features of India’s Nuclear Policy:
- No First Use: India adheres to a “No First Use” (NFU) policy, committing not to initiate nuclear strikes against nuclear-armed adversaries. This reflects India’s cultural aversion to violence and prioritizes deterrence.
- Credible Minimum Deterrence: India aims to maintain a minimal credible nuclear arsenal sufficient to dissuade potential aggressors. This focusses on effective deterrence rather than an arms race.
- Peaceful Nuclear Program: India maintains a distinction between its civilian and military nuclear programs. It upholds the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Reasons for Refusal to Sign CTBT:
- Discriminatory NPT: India views the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as discriminatory. It perpetuates the monopoly of existing nuclear powers while constraining non-nuclear states. Refusal to sign the CTBT, which reinforces the NPT framework, is an extension of this critique.
- Security Concerns: India’s unresolved border disputes with Pakistan and China necessitate maintaining the option to develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons. The CTBT’s complete test ban could hinder this option.
- Maintaining Credibility: Signing the CTBT without verifiable disarmament from established nuclear powers could weaken India’s deterrence posture.
Q5. Account for India’s opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (2002, 15Marks)
Answer: India’s decision not to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996 stemmed from several key security concerns:
- Maintaining Minimum Deterrence: India views itself as existing in a complex regional security environment. Possessing a nuclear arsenal is seen as crucial for maintaining credible minimum deterrence against potential adversaries like Pakistan and China, both of whom are nuclear-armed. CTBT, by prohibiting further testing, could limit India’s ability to develop and refine its nuclear arsenal, raising concerns about its effectiveness as a deterrent.
- Fissile Material Disparity: India argued that the CTBT did not adequately address the existing stockpiles of fissile material possessed by nuclear-weapon states. Without a mechanism for fissile material disarmament, India felt disadvantaged as a non-weapon state that had only recently developed nuclear capabilities.
- Treaty’s Discriminatory Nature: CTBT was perceived as discriminatory as it permanently banned testing by non-weapon states, while allowing existing nuclear powers to maintain their arsenals and the potential for future development under the guise of stockpile safety and maintenance. This unequal treatment raised concerns about nuclear non-proliferation’s fairness.
- Lack of Guarantee for Future Disarmament: The CTBT did not include a concrete timeline or verifiable mechanism for the eventual disarmament of existing nuclear stockpiles by weapon states. India believed that without a commitment towards complete nuclear disarmament, the CTBT was inadequate in achieving global nuclear security.
India’s stance has been that it would consider signing the CTBT only as part of a comprehensive nuclear disarmament plan that ensures equal security for all nations.
Q6. What do you know about ‘Pinaka’? (2002, 2 Marks)
Answer: Pinaka: Indigenous MBRL system by DRDO. 40 km range (Mk-I). Neutralizes area targets. Played a crucial role in Kargil War.
Q7. Explain India’s ‘No First Use’ policy in the context of Nuclear Weapons. (2002, 2 Marks)
Answer: India’s “No First Use” (NFU) policy assures adversaries that India won’t initiate nuclear strikes in a conflict. It bolsters India’s image as a responsible nuclear power and strengthens deterrence by promising a devastating retaliatory strike if attacked with nuclear weapons.
Q8. Write about Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. (2006, 2 Marks)
Answer: The NPT, a cornerstone of global nuclear security, seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology. It fosters disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Q9. Elaborate on India’s Nuclear Doctrine. (2007, 15 Marks)
Answer: India’s nuclear doctrine is a cornerstone of its national security strategy. It emphasizes credible minimum deterrence, ensuring a retaliatory strike capability to discourage a nuclear attack. Here’s an elaboration on its key aspects:
Minimum Credible Deterrence: India possesses a “No First Use” policy, committing not to initiate nuclear use in a conflict. Retaliation, however, is assured through a credible and survivable nuclear arsenal.
Command and Control: India maintains a centralized civilian control over its nuclear arsenal, ensuring political oversight and preventing unauthorized use.
Nuclear Triad: India is pursuing a nuclear triad, with land-based ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and airborne delivery systems for its nuclear weapons. This enhances deterrence by presenting a multi-pronged threat to potential adversaries.
Ambiguity: While adhering to “No First Use,” India maintains ambiguity regarding the threshold for nuclear retaliation. This uncertainty discourages potential aggressors from accurately predicting India’s response to a conventional attack.
Evolution of Doctrine: India’s nuclear doctrine has evolved since its 1998 Pokhran tests. While maintaining core principles, it adapts to the evolving strategic landscape, including potential threats from countries with less robust command and control structures.
International Context: India remains outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) due to its discriminatory nature. It advocates for a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) for universal control of fissile materials for weapons programs.
Conclusion: India’s nuclear doctrine serves the strategic objective of safeguarding its territorial integrity and national security interests. It emphasizes deterrence while striving for long-term disarmament goals.
Q10. Subsequent to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver in 2008, what are the agreements on nuclear energy that India has signed with different countries? (2011, 12 Marks)
Answer: Following the NSG waiver in 2008, India actively pursued civil nuclear cooperation agreements to bolster its domestic nuclear energy program. These agreements addressed uranium fuel supply, reactor construction, and technical expertise exchange. Here’s a breakdown of some key agreements:
- United States (2008): The Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal, a landmark agreement, facilitated access to uranium fuel and technology for civilian nuclear reactors.
- France (2008): Framework Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy enabled collaboration on nuclear power plant construction, fuel cycle management, and nuclear safety.
- Russia (2014): Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy provided for reactor construction, uranium supplies, and joint nuclear research.
- Canada (2016): Agreement for Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy allowed for civil nuclear trade, including uranium fuel, while upholding strict non-proliferation safeguards.
- Kazakhstan (2015): Agreement on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy aimed at securing uranium supplies and fostering cooperation in nuclear science and technology.
- Mongolia (2017): Agreement on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy established a framework for future collaboration in areas like uranium exploration, nuclear safety, and radioisotope applications.
These agreements signify India’s strategic intent to expand its civilian nuclear footprint. They address critical aspects like fuel security, technological advancements, and knowledge sharing, contributing to India’s energy security goals.
Q11. In what ways would the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Pact controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation? (2018, 15 Marks)
Answer: Impact on National Interests:
- Energy Security: Iran is a major oil supplier to India. US sanctions could disrupt these imports, impacting India’s energy security and potentially raising oil prices.
- Strategic Landscape: Increased tensions in the Middle East could destabilize the region, impacting India’s trade routes and potentially leading to a rise in extremism.
- Balancing Relations: India has strategic relations with both the US and Iran. Navigating this tightrope to maintain good ties with both becomes crucial.
India’s Response:
- Diplomacy and Dialogue: Advocate for a peaceful resolution through dialogue and multilateral negotiations. Promote the continuation of the Iran Nuclear Deal as a non-proliferation measure.
- Energy Diversification: Pursue alternative energy sources and suppliers to mitigate dependence on Iranian oil and minimize the impact of sanctions.
- Strategic Autonomy: Maintain a balanced approach with both the US and Iran, prioritizing India’s national interests without aligning with any specific faction.
- Engage with Stakeholders: Work with other countries like EU members who support the pact to find a common ground and a way to salvage the deal.
Conclusion:
India should adopt a nuanced and proactive approach. By prioritizing diplomacy, energy diversification, and strategic autonomy, India can navigate this complex situation while safeguarding its national interests. This response would demonstrate India’s commitment to global stability and its ability to act as a responsible power on the world stage.
In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.
For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here
For Daily Updates and Study Material:
Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS
- 1. Learn through Videos – here
- 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
- 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
- 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here
