Nuclear Pierce

Since, the World War II the issue of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology has dominated the global strategic calculus. Various issues related to space regimes and nuclear regimes have mostly been linked (directly or indirectly). More so because the global security discourse has been dominated by nuclear issues for all these years the matters related to space security occasionally get debated under the nuclear shadow. Hence, it is important to examine the interconnection amongst nuclear and space issues.

Under the rubric of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), China is the only Asian nuclear weapon state (NWS). However, states like India and Pakistan have demon­strated their nuclear weapon potential during 1998. Also, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons during 2006.[164] Israel is also known to have developed (but not tested) nuclear weapons during 1970s. However, Israel’s nuclear policy is of nuclear ambiguity/nuclear opacity, total non-acknowledgment and secrecy [2]. Apart from these known nuclear weapon states, few other states in the region have certain (covert) interests in investing into nuclear technology from the point of view of making a weapon. Particularly, Iran’s investments into nuclear technology for the purposes of energy are being viewed with suspect, and also some doubts are being raised about Myanmar’s nuclear intentions.

Interestingly, all nuclear weapon states (official or unofficial) are not spacefaring nations. States like Pakistan have made significant investments in the nuclear and missile arena, but in comparison their investments in space field are minimal.

North Korea has made certain claims in regard to successful launch of satellite, but their claims have been disputed. The other nuclear weapon states from the region, namely, China, India and Israel are established spacefaring nations. Few states within the region (with no nuclear weapon aspirations) also aspire to become spacefaring nations.

For understanding this interdependence in Asian context, it is important to reason it under the global settings. This is mainly because disarmament and arms control issues both in nuclear and space arena have certain commonalities, and any Asia – specific discussion needs to have the global backdrop.

Various treaties in space field actually have ‘nuclear’ origins. Majority of analyst and policy maker community since the 1940s generally never have viewed space as an ‘independent’ entity. Particularly, during Cold War period, the NWSs mostly looked for the ‘nuclear’ relevance of space technology—meaning how satellites and launch vehicles could be used effectively to carry forward the nuclear agenda. They realised that space technology could help the process of putting weapons of mass destruction in space and also testing of nuclear weapons could be undertaken in outer space. This made arms control and disarmament lobbies to work towards stopping/restricting likely ‘nuclearisation’ of outer space. Hence, various space security agendas got formulated mainly under nuclear settings.

The most prominent space treaty, the Outer Space Treaty (OST 1967), is more about restricting the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in space than addressing the issues related to space. The UN Moon Treaty (1979) also emphasises that the state parties shall not put nuclear weapons on or around the trajectory of the moon. Various debates and discussion in the UN bodies like Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS-set up by the General Assembly in 1959) and prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) highlight that space issues are difficult to bifurcate from nuclear issues.

Another area where space regime is being held hostage to the nuclear issues is negotiations on the FMCT (fissile material cut-off treaty). China is linking the issue of negotiations on FMCT with the PAROS [3]. China wants the conference on disarmament (CD) to negotiate both FMCT and PAROS concurrently. However, the USA opposes this idea [4]. This has prevented the CD from undertaking any serious negotiations on space issues. Overall, the Chinese position is having a bearing on the various international negotiations in space domain.

The nuclear policies of non-NPT signatory states have put them under interna­tional sanctions regime. Imposition of sanctions has denied them export of space technology too. States like India suffered technological isolation because of their nuclear policies and the nuclear testing undertaken by them during 1974 and 1998. The state had to suffer of technology apartheid, and space technology was a prominent element of such embargo. Space technology was not traded with India for many years. A particular case in point is the transfer of cryogenic technology by Russia to India. During 1992, Russia was pressurised by the then US administration in this regard because it was felt that India would use this technology for its missile programme in violation to MTCR requirements. Indian space programme has suffered significantly because of this and is yet to indigenise the cryogenic

technology. Space agenda of India has been always held hostage for nuclear matters. Only after the successful negotiation of the Indo-US nuclear deal (2005) by the year 2010/2011, the USA had removed various embargos put against India’s space agency.