India started developing nuclear weapons in the 1950s and first tested a nuclear bomb in 1974.

One concern is nuclear material being diverted from their civilian programs to weapons programs. As a major suppler of uranium, this has been an issue in Australia for the last decade. India wants Australian uranium, but they aren't a party to the non-proliferation treaty. It seems that the $ won out though, as Australia is now shipping uranium to India.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-19/australia-quietly-mak...

it's worth understanding why India doesn't sign the non-proliferation treaty.

The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China, Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons.

afaik india has a good record of preserving its nuclear secrets, and not doing "proliferation" to other countries.

Plus, India has a no first use policy. So it's not like India will threaten other countries with nuclear consequences in case of war like situations. This makes India's approach to nuclear weapons safer, IMO.

Of course, such policies can be changed whenever India would want to.

It is also worth noting that there's a big difference in enrichment plants for power plants vs enrichment plants for weapons grade material (this was a big part of the Iran deal). That being said, it isn't like you can't make a weapon out from the power grade enrichment plants, but it is substantially harder. It is even harder if you're being watched (by say... the US or Russia).

> The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China, Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons.

Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise, and also to assist with civilian power efforts.

> Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise

and how is that going for the big players since the treaty was singed ?

Nuclear arsenals are a fraction of their former size, and "battlefield" nuclear weapons have been almost entirely eliminated. But no-one has signed up to take the final step down to zero.

yeah, agree with you on arsenal sizes going down.

As much as I would like nuclear weapons gone, I don't see it as being done to a satisfactory level that assuages India's concerns. I don't think anyone has made a real commitment to denuclearizing, akin to what South Africa did a while ago.

Like other comments have noted, it's almost taken for granted that 5 countries can dictate who does and doesn't get access to uranium. It's fine that they collude, but legitimizing their collusion as logical or moral isn't really convincing. Discrimination isn't logical, especially when the club includes Russia and China - countries famous for being overtly belligerent, with a horrible human rights track record

In what way is China overtly belligerent compared to, say, the US?

What was the last territory that the US annexed? What territory has it formally annexed as the dominant superpower for the last 70 years? Hawaii is about it, with the US controlling Hawaii since the 19th century.

China just recently used its military to annex territory the size of India. The largest territory grab since Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were piling up conquests. That's after annexing Tibet (larger than Colombia) immediately after WW2. Next they plan to annex the world's 21st largest economy and one of the largest economies in Asia in Taiwan. Most of China's neighbors are openly terrified of it, including South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines.

Meanwhile the US has maintained stable, massive borders with Canada and Mexico for a very long time, despite being comically more powerful in every regard. The US isn't attempting to annex the Gulf of Mexico away from Mexico & Co., even though it trivially could and nobody could stop it. Neither Canada nor Mexico are actually afraid of the US.

Canada's border with the US has been the largest, longest non-militarized border in world history. India, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam (arguably Russia as well) are in perpetual military stand-off mode on their territory and borders with China.

Dozens of countries allow the US to station its superpower military inside their borders, with zero fear of being annexed or invaded for conquest. Japan, Germany, Poland, South Korea, the Baltics, et al. are not afraid the US is suddenly going to decide to try to annex them or their territory.

Annexation and being belligerent are two different things. You can be the latter without doing the former. In that regard the US hasn't a stellar track record.

>China just recently used its military to annex territory the size of India

I am not sure what you are talking about.

Not OP, but probably this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...

Depends on if you are China or the population being annexed.

Let's not overlook the recent skirmish with adjacent nuclear power, Pakistan.