Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Why Australia should sell uranium to India

By Kaushik Kapisthalam - posted Thursday, 23 August 2007

In a stunning turn of events, John Howard’s Australian federal government has decided in principle to sell uranium to India. As expected, there is already a chorus of opposition to this decision, from nuclear non-proliferation hard liners to dogmatists who seek to keep India confined to an India-Pakistan box. Unfortunately, most of the arguments against selling uranium to India are clichéd and inconsistent with today’s reality.

The primary line of reasoning in opposition to uranium sales to India is that the country has not acceded to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT is considered by many to be the indispensable framework for global nuclear non-proliferation efforts: however, this argument is simplistic because it glosses over the fact that the NPT essentially allows five countries (US, UK, France, Russia and China) to keep their nuclear weapons in perpetuity while condemning the rest of the world to second-tier status.

While it is true that NPT’s Article 6 requires the five recognised nuclear powers to work towards eventual disarmament, the fact these nations still maintain thousands of nuclear weapons suggests that the treaty’s fundamental bargain was essentially a lie. From the Indian point of view, the hard-line NPT-centric non-proliferation opinions long advocated by powerful Western nations were always hypocritical.


A former Indian official once told this author, “These countries pontificate to us on nuclear weapons while sitting safely under the American and NATO nuclear umbrella. If they are so opposed to nuclear weapons, why did they feel the need to accept a nuclear shield?”

It is interesting to note that many of the NPT-centric critics of an India-Australia nuclear agreement are not consistent in their approach. Australia currently supplies uranium to the US, France and the UK. In the strictest sense, these nations are violating their NPT Article 6 commitments on disarmament.

Britain recently announced a policy to build nuclear missile carrying submarine fleet that would preserve and modernise the country’s nuclear arsenal for another few decades. The US has recently spoken of new uses for nuclear weapons including in “bunker buster” bombs. China is the only NPT nuclear weapon state to currently build nuclear warheads, some of which are aimed at India.

Australia recently signed an agreement to sell uranium to China without requiring Beijing to commit to an end to nuclear weapons testing or to stop making more nuclear warheads. It would be fair to ask India uranium opponents if they are not displaying hypocrisy by opposing sales to India, citing the NPT, while being quiet on Australia’s uranium sales to the US, UK, France and China in the light of their defiance of the NPT Article 6.

Simply put, if Canberra is committed to the NPT over everything else, it should immediately cease co-operation with all nuclear weapon states pending their immediate disarmament.

Another school of thought argues that by supplying uranium to India’s civilian reactors, Australia would help free up India’s “scarce” indigenous uranium sources to be used to make atomic bombs. This is a misrepresentation of India’s nuclear behaviour to date.


Currently, other than the two dedicated weapons-grade plutonium producing reactors, India has 11 Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) that are un-safeguarded and could potentially be used for bomb-making. A simple calculation reveals that India could have produced over 18,000 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for about 4,000 warheads, had it used all these 11 PHWRs for that purpose over the years.

In comparison, India’s current fissile stockpile is estimated at a few hundred kilograms or about 80-100 warheads. This is why this line of “India should be forced to make a choice” reasoning is absurd. Any country that has chosen to make less than 5 per cent of the number of bombs it could have produced could not have done so because of resource constraints.

The above reasoning also shows why welcoming India into the global non-proliferation mainstream is a net positive for the efforts to curtail nuclear weapons. Most India critics take India’s historical restraint for granted. One American expert observed that India’s commitment to not proliferate nuclear technology and maintain a testing moratorium as part of the Indo-US nuclear deal is not valuable because India will likely do so with or without a nuclear deal.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

44 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kaushik Kapisthalam is a US-based commentator on South Asia issues with a focus on defence and strategic affairs. He is a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies and writes regularly for United Press International, Defense News and Asia Times. He can be reached at

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Kaushik Kapisthalam

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Kaushik Kapisthalam
Article Tools
Comment 44 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy