The United Kingdom is aiming to increase its nuclear power capacity. This as a part of the effort to boost energy security and electricity generation. And to this end, the government launched its new body- Great British Nuclear.

UK establishes Great British Nuclear body

North Korea is testing its intercontinental ballistic missile or ICBM. North Korea's newest long-range missile increases the chances it could deliver a strike to the US Mainland giving Kim Jong-un more leverage in his dealings with the Biden Administration. Even his sister has defended the country's missile launch as an act of self-defence according to reports.

North Korea to boost its nuclear arsenal?

After history filled with World Wars and high tensions during the Cold War, Europe is once again facing rising nuclear tensions. This comes in as Belarus has now confirmed that it has started to receive delivery of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Here we discuss the same in an interview with Geopolitical Analyst General Rich Outzen (R).

Putin: Why no question over the west's Nukes?

After history filled with World Wars and high tensions during the Cold War, Europe is once again facing rising nuclear tensions. This comes in as Belarus has now confirmed that it has started to receive delivery of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Here are more details.

Belarus says the Nukes could be used swiftly when required

For the first time since 1991, Russia has now positioned its tactical nuclear weapons on foreign soil. In Belarus. The United States, however, has been early to this game of Europe's nuclearization. As part of the NATO military alliance, the United States has stationed over a 100 nuclear weapons spread across 5 nations in Europe. France and United Kingdom also have nuclear weapons. The fear that the war in Ukraine could turn into a nuclear conflagration is not unfounded. Since the end of World War II, Europe has been one of the most secure and peaceful regions in the world. But the Russian invasion of Ukraine has changed the security calculus of Europe. And as things stand at this moment, no other region in the world, looks as vulnerable to a nuclear holocaust as Europe. Mohammed Saleh gets you the details.

How Russia & United States turned Europe into a nuclear playground

Alexander Lukashenko the Belarusian president has confirmed the relocation of some tactical nuclear weapons from Russia to Belarus. He says the process has already started and he has allowed his territory which borders Ukraine as well as EU and NATO members Poland and Lithuania to serve as a launching part for Russia's Ukraine offensive. This comes after Russia signed a deal with its close ally Belarus about the storage of the warheads at the special facility that should be finished in just over a month's time.

Will there be a Nuclear War? Belarus, the new chapter in Russia-Ukraine war

Russia plans to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus and as per Alexander Lukashenko the war heads are already on the move. Putin has already warned that Russia, with way more nuclear weapons than other countries, will use all means to defend itself.

Russia vs The West: What are tactical nuclear weapons? | Russia-Ukraine war

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky compared Bakhmut to Hiroshima. While this comparison is far-fetched, is the real Hiroshima is waiting to happen somewhere else? Europe's largest nuclear power plant has become a ticking time bomb.

Gravitas | Zaporizhzhia: How Ukraine war could go nuclear| Europe staring at risk of a nuclear leak?

US President Joe Biden and South Korean leader Yoon Suk Yeol announced that the two nations will bolster the response to North Korea's persistent nuclear threat with an agreement that includes plans to dock US nuclear-armed submarines in South Korea for the first time in over 40 years.

Biden-Yoon Meet: US to dock nuclear submarines in South Korea for first time in 40 years

After the G7 condemned its ballistic missile launches and demanded that it completely denuclearise, North Korea retaliated Friday saying its position as a nuclear power is "final and irreversible."&nbsp;

This comes after G7 ministers in a joint statement condemned&nbsp;North Korea for its "unprecedented number of unlawful ballistic missile launches, including the April 13 launch of what North Korea claimed as a solid-fuel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile."

"We reiterate our unwavering commitment to the goal of North Korea’s complete, verifiable, and irreversible abandonment of its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs, and any other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs," the G7 document read.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-nears-unprecedented-action-to-limit-us-investments-in-china-584616">Biden nears unprecedented action to limit US investments in China</a>

Hitting back at the US and other G7 nations, North Korean Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui said the country will remain an "undeniable reality" even if it's not accepted. She also condemned the US and other members for urging Pyongyang to denuclearise.&nbsp;

She said that Pyongyang's development of nuclear weapons was solely done to protect itself from American threats. She urged Washington to halt its "hostile policy" towards North Korea in order to safeguard its own security. "It is an anachronistic idea if you think that only Washington has the right and capability to carry out a nuclear strike," reported Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) quoting the foreign minister.&nbsp;

"As long as we have the strength to hit back against U.S. nuclear threats, we will never seek recognition or approval from anyone."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gold-worth-100mn-stolen-from-canadas-toronto-airport-in-rare-heist-report-584604">Gold heist at Canada's Toronto airport could be country's biggest robbery in years</a>

Choe said urging North Korea to denuclearise is an illegal interference in country's internal matters. The minister further cautioned US and G7 nations that Pyongyang will resort to strong action in case its sovereignty and fundamental interests are violated.&nbsp;

"We will continue all legitimate action granted to any sovereign states until military threats from the U.S. and its allied hostile forces are completely eliminated, and the hostile environment that impedes our independent existence and development is fundamentally ended," Choe said.

<h2>US and South Korea drills flared tensions&nbsp;</h2>

North Korea has increased its ballistic launches in recent times as US and South Korean perform their yearly military drills. These drills have sparked an angry response from North Korea, which has dubbed them a practice for "an all-out, nuclear war."

Watch | Gravitas Global Headlines | Have British schools become breeding grounds for Anti-Hindu hate?

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-global-headlines-have-british-schools-become-breeding-grounds-for-anti-hindu-hate-584594/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

North Korea also tested a solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for the first time last week. It is seen as one of its most provocative military displays in recent memory. The missile is touted to be a more mobile and difficult-to-detect weapon that could ostensibly target the whole US.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

After the G7 condemned its ballistic missile launches and demanded that it completely denuclearise, North Korea retaliated Friday saying its position as a nuclear power is "final and irreversible.

After the G7 condemned its ballistic missile launches and demanded that it completely denuclearise, North Korea retaliated Friday saying its position as a nuclear power is "final and irreversible." This comes after G7 ministers in a joint statement condemned North Korea for its "unprecedented number of unlawful ballistic missile launches, including the April 13 launch of what North Korea claimed as a solid-fuel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile." "We reiterate our unwavering commitment to the goal of North Korea’s complete, verifiable, and irreversible abandonment of its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs, and any other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs," the G7 document read. Also Read | Biden nears unprecedented action to limit US investments in China Hitting back at the US and other G7 nations, North Korean Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui said the country will remain an "undeniable reality" even if it's not accepted. She also condemned the US and other members for urging Pyongyang to denuclearise. She said that Pyongyang's development of nuclear weapons was solely done to protect itself from American threats. She urged Washington to halt its "hostile policy" towards North Korea in order to safeguard its own security. "It is an anachronistic idea if you think that only Washington has the right and capability to carry out a nuclear strike," reported Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) quoting the foreign minister. "As long as we have the strength to hit back against U.S. nuclear threats, we will never seek recognition or approval from anyone." Also Read | Gold heist at Canada's Toronto airport could be country's biggest robbery in years Choe said urging North Korea to denuclearise is an illegal interference in country's internal matters. The minister further cautioned US and G7 nations that Pyongyang will resort to strong action in case its sovereignty and fundamental interests are violated. "We will continue all legitimate action granted to any sovereign states until military threats from the U.S. and its allied hostile forces are completely eliminated, and the hostile environment that impedes our independent existence and development is fundamentally ended," Choe said. US and South Korea drills flared tensions North Korea has increased its ballistic launches in recent times as US and South Korean perform their yearly military drills. These drills have sparked an angry response from North Korea, which has dubbed them a practice for "an all-out, nuclear war." Watch | Gravitas Global Headlines | Have British schools become breeding grounds for Anti-Hindu hate? × North Korea also tested a solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for the first time last week. It is seen as one of its most provocative military displays in recent memory. The missile is touted to be a more mobile and difficult-to-detect weapon that could ostensibly target the whole US. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

North Korea hits back at G7, says position as nuclear state 'final and irreversible'

In latest commercial satellite imagery,&nbsp;North Korea's&nbsp;Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Centre has indicated a high level of activity around it, as per US-based think tank 38 North.&nbsp;&nbsp;

These developments, as per the think tank, seem to reflect Kim Jong Un’s recent directive to increase the country’s fissile material production to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal.

Watch | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-two-dead-a-child-injured-after-hot-air-balloon-catches-fire-mid-air-in-mexico-578162">Hot air balloon catches fire mid-air in Mexico, two dead and a child injured</a>

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a couple of days ago urged for increased manufacture of bomb-fuels of a high enough quality to be used in weapons. Kim underlined the necessity to increase bomb fuel production during a meeting with officials and scientists in order to achieve his objectives of "exponentially" expanding his nuclear arsenal.

Now, as per the latest report, the US think tank said that the water discharges detected around the bloc may indicate that a new reactor Experimental Light Water Reactor (ELWR) at Yongbyon site is nearing completion and approaching a transition to operational status.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nepal-president-ramchandra-paudel-admitted-to-hospital-578148">Nepal President Ramchandra Paudel admitted to hospital</a>

The report also added that a new construction has started around the Uranium Enrichment Plant (UEP) area which is likely intended to expand the uranium conversion capabilities. The satellite imagery from March 17 revealed the foundation of a new ELWR building measuring approximately 42 metres by 15 metres.&nbsp;

Watch | WION Exclusive: Indian Actor Dia Mirza speaks to WION on playing Geetanjali in 'Bheed'

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-exclusive-indian-actor-dia-mirza-speaks-to-wion-on-playing-geetanjali-in-bheed-578143/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The foundation appears to have approximately 20 rooms on the base floor. "Given its location, this building will likely serve an administrative function, such as accommodating additional staff required to operate the reactor or providing research and engineering spaces," the report said.&nbsp;

The other reactor, 5 MWe, has been operating since July 2021. "Based on the irradiation campaigns in 2003-2007 and 2013-2018, it is probably approaching the point of discharging spent fuel and refueling," the report added.&nbsp; 
 
(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In latest commercial satellite imagery, North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Centre has indicated a high level of activity around it, as per US-based think tank 38 North.

In latest commercial satellite imagery, North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Centre has indicated a high level of activity around it, as per US-based think tank 38 North. These developments, as per the think tank, seem to reflect Kim Jong Un’s recent directive to increase the country’s fissile material production to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal. Watch | Hot air balloon catches fire mid-air in Mexico, two dead and a child injured North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a couple of days ago urged for increased manufacture of bomb-fuels of a high enough quality to be used in weapons. Kim underlined the necessity to increase bomb fuel production during a meeting with officials and scientists in order to achieve his objectives of "exponentially" expanding his nuclear arsenal. Now, as per the latest report, the US think tank said that the water discharges detected around the bloc may indicate that a new reactor Experimental Light Water Reactor (ELWR) at Yongbyon site is nearing completion and approaching a transition to operational status. Also Read | Nepal President Ramchandra Paudel admitted to hospital The report also added that a new construction has started around the Uranium Enrichment Plant (UEP) area which is likely intended to expand the uranium conversion capabilities. The satellite imagery from March 17 revealed the foundation of a new ELWR building measuring approximately 42 metres by 15 metres. Watch | WION Exclusive: Indian Actor Dia Mirza speaks to WION on playing Geetanjali in 'Bheed' × The foundation appears to have approximately 20 rooms on the base floor. "Given its location, this building will likely serve an administrative function, such as accommodating additional staff required to operate the reactor or providing research and engineering spaces," the report said. The other reactor, 5 MWe, has been operating since July 2021. "Based on the irradiation campaigns in 2003-2007 and 2013-2018, it is probably approaching the point of discharging spent fuel and refueling," the report added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

High level activity at N Korea’s nuclear complex after Kim’s call to increase bomb-fuel production

In 2022, the number of operational atomic warheads has increased globally. The rise in nuclear warheads has given a rise to a major catastrophe between leading world. Will the world will see a repeat of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? @mohammed11saleh explores.

Global Nuclear Aresenal is rising

Russia is set to deploy its tactical nuclear weapons in its neighboring country Belarus. President Vladimir Putin made this announcement, as per Russian media reports, this will be the first time since the mid-1990s that Moscow would be stationed in such arms outside its territory. NATO has condemned Putin's decision.

NATO on Russia's move: Dangerous and irresponsible nuclear rhetoric

Ukraine on Sunday (March 26) called for convening an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) over Russia's decision to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Kyiv has already said that Belarus has been held 'hostage' by Russia.

"Ukraine expects effective actions from the United Kingdom, China, the United States and France to counteract the Kremlin's nuclear blackmail... We demand that an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council be immediately convened for this purpose," the Ukrainian foreign ministry said.&nbsp;

Russia on Saturday made clear its decision to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, a country the ruling regime of which is a strong ally of Russia. President Putin himself made the announcement.

Putin said the move to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus was "nothing unusual."

"The United States has been doing this for decades. They have long placed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies," Putin said.

Putin said he spoke to Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko and said "we agreed to do the same."

Watch | Russia to deploy tactical nuclear weapons, US reacts cautiously to move

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-to-deploy-tactical-nuclear-weapons-us-reacts-cautiously-to-move-575854/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Russia's announcement has attracted criticism but the US has reacted cautiously.

"We have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture nor any indications Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon. We remain committed to the collective defence of the NATO alliance," a senior official in US administration was quoted by the Reuters.

Germany was comparatively vocal in its condemnation of Russian decision. Berlin said that the Russian announcement was "another attempt at nuclear intimidation by Russia", as quoted by AFP.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-says-belarus-will-be-hostage-if-russia-places-tactical-nukes-575875">Ukraine slams Russia's nuke plans, says Belarus taken 'hostage'</a>

"The comparison made by President Putin to nuclear sharing in NATO is misleading and does not justify the step announced by Russia," said an unnamed German official in the foreign office as quoted by AFP.

(With inputs from agencies)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Ukraine on Sunday (March 26) called for convening an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) over Russia's decision to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Ukraine on Sunday (March 26) called for convening an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) over Russia's decision to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Kyiv has already said that Belarus has been held 'hostage' by Russia. "Ukraine expects effective actions from the United Kingdom, China, the United States and France to counteract the Kremlin's nuclear blackmail... We demand that an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council be immediately convened for this purpose," the Ukrainian foreign ministry said. Russia on Saturday made clear its decision to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, a country the ruling regime of which is a strong ally of Russia. President Putin himself made the announcement. Putin said the move to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus was "nothing unusual." "The United States has been doing this for decades. They have long placed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies," Putin said. Putin said he spoke to Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko and said "we agreed to do the same." Watch | Russia to deploy tactical nuclear weapons, US reacts cautiously to move × Russia's announcement has attracted criticism but the US has reacted cautiously. "We have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture nor any indications Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon. We remain committed to the collective defence of the NATO alliance," a senior official in US administration was quoted by the Reuters. Germany was comparatively vocal in its condemnation of Russian decision. Berlin said that the Russian announcement was "another attempt at nuclear intimidation by Russia", as quoted by AFP. Also Read | Ukraine slams Russia's nuke plans, says Belarus taken 'hostage' "The comparison made by President Putin to nuclear sharing in NATO is misleading and does not justify the step announced by Russia," said an unnamed German official in the foreign office as quoted by AFP. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Ukraine wants urgent UNSC meet over Russia’s nuke deployment plans in Belarus

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday sent out a hard-hitting message to the West and talked about suspending a nuclear arms control pact that it holds with the US, the New START treaty.&nbsp;

"... if the United States conducts tests, then we will. No one should have dangerous illusions that global strategic parity can be destroyed," Putin said.&nbsp;

This once again heightened concerns over a possible nuclear threat as the world's two main nuclear powers come face-to-face.&nbsp;

But how real are Putin's threats?&nbsp;

India's former ambassador to Turkey and Uzbekistan and Author of “Uncle Sam's Nuclear Cabin”, M.K. Bhadrakumar, spoke with WION and shared his razor-sharp observations on what significance Putin's nuclear threats have. He also spoke about the US thinking and how India's steadfast position on the Ukraine war reflects the nation’s well-founded foreign policy.&nbsp;

The envoy cut to the chase and said, "The nuclear threat is more of a hoax."&nbsp;

"It is political. One must understand that Russians have a clear nuclear doctrine, which is registered with the UN and is the country’s legislation as well. Putin or anyone cannot change it arbitrarily."

The world first believed that Russia would capture Ukraine in a matter of days but now discussions are around whether Putin's nuclear threat is real and can actually lead to a global disaster.

Bhadrakumar detailed what Russia's doctrine actually entails. "It spells out very clearly that nuclear power will be used in certain situations. Like, if the Russian state comes under threat or its existence is in danger, and the Ukraine conflict does not really come to that."&nbsp;

When can a shift really happen in the nuke status quo?

The former diplomat said the doctrine can "only change if there is a direct NATO intervention in Ukraine."&nbsp; 
 
"(US President Joe) Biden is quite mindful of it and that is why he keeps saying that there is no question of putting boots on the ground or NATO interfering in the war."&nbsp;

In any case, Bhadrakumar pointed out, even if the US wants, the other NATO powers are not going to go along with it.&nbsp;

"They know a confrontation of that kind between NATO and Russia will develop into a nuclear confrontation and Europe will be in the crossfire."&nbsp;

Nuclear threat: A propaganda tool

Nuclear threat, the former envoy said, is propaganda to create certain narratives.&nbsp;

By talking about the suspension of the New START treaty, Putin has put the ball in the American court, he said. "Now Biden cannot go on and escalate&nbsp;because if he escalates now, Russians will walk out of the New START treaty completely."&nbsp;

The Russian foreign ministry issued a statement&nbsp;after Putin’s treaty suspension speech, clarifying that they will nonetheless observe the terms of the treaty till 2026.&nbsp;

“That (talk of New START treaty suspension) is clearly to compel the US to exercise self-restraint because if US goes ahead and escalates like this and Russians walk out, then Europe is in a mess. Europe has two nuclear powers and Germany and Italy will also now want nuclear deterrence of their own, then what happens with NATO? NATO becomes redundant."&nbsp;

He stressed that Americans know all this. "It is a different ball game that is being played there. What Russians have done is to compel the US to strategically engage with Russia and that means all issues connected to security will be on the table."&nbsp;

"This is nothing about nuclear war, this is more about nuclear diplomacy."&nbsp;

By nuclear diplomacy, he said, Russians hope to bring matters to the negotiating table.&nbsp;

"Security is not divisible, like you cannot just handle nuclear security, there has to be mutual trust, mutual confidence, various underpinnings have to be built into it and so on but the Americans will have no choice but to engage with Russians.”

“Russians will then say you can not give long-range weapons to Ukraine and you cannot induct Ukraine as a NATO member and so on."&nbsp;

Searching for a thaw? The Nuland interview

Speaking about US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland's interview with TASS news agency, the envoy said, if one looks closely they will note that there are many backdoor talks which go on.&nbsp;

Notably, in an interview with the agency, Nuland said that the United States is ready to start talks with Russia on the New START nuclear arms control treaty "tomorrow" without preconditions and accusations if Moscow is prepared for this.&nbsp;

"She would not have said it without instructions from Biden himself."

He said that Americans are now ready to talk as otherwise, it can lead to the demolition of NATO and the transatlantic system and all nuclear threshold states in Europe like Turkey, Poland, Germany, and Italy will all become nuclear states. "And if there is no nuclear architecture everyone will go for deterrent capability on its own."&nbsp;

And then what happens?&nbsp;

He said, "It will be free for all."&nbsp;

"And what is the requirement of an alliance if all develop their own deterrent capabilities?" the envoy questioned.&nbsp;

"South Arabia will go for it, Iran, South Korea... so many threshold states are there... Egypt."&nbsp;

"Americans know that after that, there conventional superiority... military superiority becomes irrelevant."&nbsp;

"And if the other side has nuclear capabilities they checkmate American power. So this is the brilliant game that the Russians have played by bringing these things to the fore. So there are no winners after this."&nbsp;

He underscored that the conventional military superiority of the US cannot be translated in geopolitical terms.&nbsp;

"Saddam Hussein did not have weapons (of mass destruction)....suppose Saddam Hussain had weapons or Muammar Gaddafi had weapons. They would not have met with that miserable fate. So a number of countries are going to think along those lines."

After all, in the case of Russia, the former envoy underlined, the country cannot lose this war. "Russia cannot be defeated only because it is someone with nuclear capability."&nbsp;

"Because if they are down, they will take the Americans along with them. Biden knows in any case the game is up.. it will be all order or complete anarchy."&nbsp;

Ukraine can make a ‘dirty bomb?’

In the latest IAEA report, the UN nuclear watchdog elaborated on nuclear safety in Ukraine. It noted that the nuclear plant Zaporizhzhia NPP, which Russian troops entered on March 4, 2022, remains under Russian control.

On a discussion over the report, the Ambassador said Zaporizhzhia&nbsp;NPP is an entirely different category and has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.&nbsp;

"It is in terms of energy security. It caters to the bulk of Ukraine's power grid. If these provinces are going to be part of Russia, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donbas province and so on, their economic viability will depend on power supplies and it will help Russia quite a lot."&nbsp;

Going back to the main issue of nuclear threat, the envoy said, "Second aspect is that unless they are not in control…there is always a possibility that Ukraine is a nuclear threshold state. So in these kinds of anarchical conditions, they can always go nuclear and they can always make the dirty bomb."

"Russian raised this in the UNSC and I was asked to come and look into it whether Ukraine is already doing it or not. So, NPP is entirely different, it has nothing to do with nuclear war."&nbsp;

India's steadfast stand on the Russia-Ukraine war

India's position on the Russia-Ukraine war has remained constant. Even under western pressure, India did not waver.&nbsp;

"India has the professionalism to understand what is happening. The confusion arises only in the mind of uninformed people but as far as decision-makers are concerned keep them separate."

He said Indian PM Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister S Jaishankar have all the facts at their disposal.&nbsp;

"They will not get agitated and India's policy towards the war is well-founded on the basis of other larger considerations. Everyone knows it and Jaishankar's remarks at MSC make it abundantly clear that India has understood that this is about the world order."

"The transatlantic alliance cannot dictate any further terms.. that is about western hegemony."

"The war is an unprecedented confrontation between big powers. So, it is an entirely different ball game and world order that is going to prevail in the 21st century and in the coming decades. It is very clear that India's strategic autonomy is well-founded."

&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday sent out a hard-hitting message to the West and talked about suspending a nuclear arms control pact that it holds with the US, the New START treaty.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday sent out a hard-hitting message to the West and talked about suspending a nuclear arms control pact that it holds with the US, the New START treaty. "... if the United States conducts tests, then we will. No one should have dangerous illusions that global strategic parity can be destroyed," Putin said. This once again heightened concerns over a possible nuclear threat as the world's two main nuclear powers come face-to-face. But how real are Putin's threats? India's former ambassador to Turkey and Uzbekistan and Author of “Uncle Sam's Nuclear Cabin”, M.K. Bhadrakumar, spoke with WION and shared his razor-sharp observations on what significance Putin's nuclear threats have. He also spoke about the US thinking and how India's steadfast position on the Ukraine war reflects the nation’s well-founded foreign policy. The envoy cut to the chase and said, "The nuclear threat is more of a hoax." "It is political. One must understand that Russians have a clear nuclear doctrine, which is registered with the UN and is the country’s legislation as well. Putin or anyone cannot change it arbitrarily." The world first believed that Russia would capture Ukraine in a matter of days but now discussions are around whether Putin's nuclear threat is real and can actually lead to a global disaster. Bhadrakumar detailed what Russia's doctrine actually entails. "It spells out very clearly that nuclear power will be used in certain situations. Like, if the Russian state comes under threat or its existence is in danger, and the Ukraine conflict does not really come to that." When can a shift really happen in the nuke status quo? The former diplomat said the doctrine can "only change if there is a direct NATO intervention in Ukraine." "(US President Joe) Biden is quite mindful of it and that is why he keeps saying that there is no question of putting boots on the ground or NATO interfering in the war." In any case, Bhadrakumar pointed out, even if the US wants, the other NATO powers are not going to go along with it. "They know a confrontation of that kind between NATO and Russia will develop into a nuclear confrontation and Europe will be in the crossfire." Nuclear threat: A propaganda tool Nuclear threat, the former envoy said, is propaganda to create certain narratives. By talking about the suspension of the New START treaty, Putin has put the ball in the American court, he said. "Now Biden cannot go on and escalate because if he escalates now, Russians will walk out of the New START treaty completely." The Russian foreign ministry issued a statement after Putin’s treaty suspension speech, clarifying that they will nonetheless observe the terms of the treaty till 2026. “That (talk of New START treaty suspension) is clearly to compel the US to exercise self-restraint because if US goes ahead and escalates like this and Russians walk out, then Europe is in a mess. Europe has two nuclear powers and Germany and Italy will also now want nuclear deterrence of their own, then what happens with NATO? NATO becomes redundant." He stressed that Americans know all this. "It is a different ball game that is being played there. What Russians have done is to compel the US to strategically engage with Russia and that means all issues connected to security will be on the table." "This is nothing about nuclear war, this is more about nuclear diplomacy." By nuclear diplomacy, he said, Russians hope to bring matters to the negotiating table. "Security is not divisible, like you cannot just handle nuclear security, there has to be mutual trust, mutual confidence, various underpinnings have to be built into it and so on but the Americans will have no choice but to engage with Russians.” “Russians will then say you can not give long-range weapons to Ukraine and you cannot induct Ukraine as a NATO member and so on." Searching for a thaw? The Nuland interview Speaking about US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland's interview with TASS news agency, the envoy said, if one looks closely they will note that there are many backdoor talks which go on. Notably, in an interview with the agency, Nuland said that the United States is ready to start talks with Russia on the New START nuclear arms control treaty "tomorrow" without preconditions and accusations if Moscow is prepared for this. "She would not have said it without instructions from Biden himself." He said that Americans are now ready to talk as otherwise, it can lead to the demolition of NATO and the transatlantic system and all nuclear threshold states in Europe like Turkey, Poland, Germany, and Italy will all become nuclear states. "And if there is no nuclear architecture everyone will go for deterrent capability on its own." And then what happens? He said, "It will be free for all." "And what is the requirement of an alliance if all develop their own deterrent capabilities?" the envoy questioned. "South Arabia will go for it, Iran, South Korea... so many threshold states are there... Egypt." "Americans know that after that, there conventional superiority... military superiority becomes irrelevant." "And if the other side has nuclear capabilities they checkmate American power. So this is the brilliant game that the Russians have played by bringing these things to the fore. So there are no winners after this." He underscored that the conventional military superiority of the US cannot be translated in geopolitical terms. "Saddam Hussein did not have weapons (of mass destruction)....suppose Saddam Hussain had weapons or Muammar Gaddafi had weapons. They would not have met with that miserable fate. So a number of countries are going to think along those lines." After all, in the case of Russia, the former envoy underlined, the country cannot lose this war. "Russia cannot be defeated only because it is someone with nuclear capability." "Because if they are down, they will take the Americans along with them. Biden knows in any case the game is up.. it will be all order or complete anarchy." Ukraine can make a ‘dirty bomb?’ In the latest IAEA report, the UN nuclear watchdog elaborated on nuclear safety in Ukraine. It noted that the nuclear plant Zaporizhzhia NPP, which Russian troops entered on March 4, 2022, remains under Russian control. On a discussion over the report, the Ambassador said Zaporizhzhia NPP is an entirely different category and has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. "It is in terms of energy security. It caters to the bulk of Ukraine's power grid. If these provinces are going to be part of Russia, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donbas province and so on, their economic viability will depend on power supplies and it will help Russia quite a lot." Going back to the main issue of nuclear threat, the envoy said, "Second aspect is that unless they are not in control…there is always a possibility that Ukraine is a nuclear threshold state. So in these kinds of anarchical conditions, they can always go nuclear and they can always make the dirty bomb." "Russian raised this in the UNSC and I was asked to come and look into it whether Ukraine is already doing it or not. So, NPP is entirely different, it has nothing to do with nuclear war." India's steadfast stand on the Russia-Ukraine war India's position on the Russia-Ukraine war has remained constant. Even under western pressure, India did not waver. "India has the professionalism to understand what is happening. The confusion arises only in the mind of uninformed people but as far as decision-makers are concerned keep them separate." He said Indian PM Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister S Jaishankar have all the facts at their disposal. "They will not get agitated and India's policy towards the war is well-founded on the basis of other larger considerations. Everyone knows it and Jaishankar's remarks at MSC make it abundantly clear that India has understood that this is about the world order." "The transatlantic alliance cannot dictate any further terms.. that is about western hegemony." "The war is an unprecedented confrontation between big powers. So, it is an entirely different ball game and world order that is going to prevail in the 21st century and in the coming decades. It is very clear that India's strategic autonomy is well-founded." WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Russia-Ukraine war anniversary: Why this former diplomat thinks Putin's nuclear threat ‘is more of a hoax’

Iran has hit back at UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi after he voiced worries over modifications to equipment at the country's underground Fordo uranium enrichment plant, reported AFP quoting state media.&nbsp;According to a confidential report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obtained by the news agency on Wednesday, Iran significantly altered an interconnection between two centrifuge clusters at the Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP), without prior notice,&nbsp;that can enrich uranium to up to 60%.

In the report, Grossi flagged worries that Iran had implemented this change without informing the agency beforehand.&nbsp;However, Mohamad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has hit back at Grossi. He was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA that the organization gave a letter to IAEA that an "inspector... made a mistake and gave an incorrect report."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-least-13-palestinians-injured-in-israeli-military-raids-at-jericho-camp-558804">At least 13 Palestinians injured in Israeli military raids at Jericho camp</a>

“But yet again the director-general of the agency released this issue to the media,” he said, labelling it “unprofessional and unacceptable” behaviour. “We hope that this practice will not be continued... because this is not acceptable for his reputation and the agency," he added.&nbsp;

This comes after an unannounced Fordo inspection on 21 January by IAEA. The UN nuclear watchdog found “two IR-6 centrifuge cascades... were interconnected in a way that was substantially different from the mode of operation declared by Iran to the agency”.

Grossi later on 24 January told the European Parliament that he is planning plans to visit Tehran this month “for a much-needed political dialogue, or reestablishment thereof, with Iran”.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-swap-dozens-of-prisoners-of-war-558794">Russia, Ukraine swap dozens of prisoners of war</a>

Discussions to resurrect an&nbsp;agreement over Iran's nuclear programme have stagnated, and Grossi said he wants to visit Tehran in February for talks on encouraging it to boost cooperation on the Iran nuclear deal which has hit a “big, big impasse."&nbsp;

US and allies are looking at it as a significant addition to the country’s nuclear programme. United States, Britain, France and Germany said Friday in a statement that “Iranian claims that this action was carried out in error are inadequate."&nbsp;

“We judge Iran’s actions based on the impartial and objective reports of the IAEA, not Iran’s purported intent.”

Watch | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-eu-spat-over-americas-inflation-reduction-act-558768">US-EU spat over America's Inflation Reduction Act</a>

Under then-President Donald Trump, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, in 2018. It reinstated sanctions against Iran, which caused Tehran to start breaking the terms of the agreement.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Iran has hit back at UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi after he voiced worries over modifications to equipment at the country's underground Fordo uranium enrichment plant, reported AFP quoting state media.

Iran has hit back at UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi after he voiced worries over modifications to equipment at the country's underground Fordo uranium enrichment plant, reported AFP quoting state media. According to a confidential report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obtained by the news agency on Wednesday, Iran significantly altered an interconnection between two centrifuge clusters at the Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP), without prior notice, that can enrich uranium to up to 60%. In the report, Grossi flagged worries that Iran had implemented this change without informing the agency beforehand. However, Mohamad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has hit back at Grossi. He was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA that the organization gave a letter to IAEA that an "inspector... made a mistake and gave an incorrect report." Also Read | At least 13 Palestinians injured in Israeli military raids at Jericho camp “But yet again the director-general of the agency released this issue to the media,” he said, labelling it “unprofessional and unacceptable” behaviour. “We hope that this practice will not be continued... because this is not acceptable for his reputation and the agency," he added. This comes after an unannounced Fordo inspection on 21 January by IAEA. The UN nuclear watchdog found “two IR-6 centrifuge cascades... were interconnected in a way that was substantially different from the mode of operation declared by Iran to the agency”. Grossi later on 24 January told the European Parliament that he is planning plans to visit Tehran this month “for a much-needed political dialogue, or reestablishment thereof, with Iran”. Also Read | Russia, Ukraine swap dozens of prisoners of war Discussions to resurrect an agreement over Iran's nuclear programme have stagnated, and Grossi said he wants to visit Tehran in February for talks on encouraging it to boost cooperation on the Iran nuclear deal which has hit a “big, big impasse." US and allies are looking at it as a significant addition to the country’s nuclear programme. United States, Britain, France and Germany said Friday in a statement that “Iranian claims that this action was carried out in error are inadequate." “We judge Iran’s actions based on the impartial and objective reports of the IAEA, not Iran’s purported intent.” Watch | US-EU spat over America's Inflation Reduction Act Under then-President Donald Trump, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, in 2018. It reinstated sanctions against Iran, which caused Tehran to start breaking the terms of the agreement. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Iran hits back at IAEA chief Rafael Grossi over report on Fordo nuclear plant

The UK Navy Chief has ordered an urgent investigation amid claims that workers on a Trident nuclear armed submarine fixed broken bolts in the vessel's reactor chamber using glue.

WION Fineprint: 'Botched attempt' to fix UK nuclear submarine

NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a research arm of the US Department of Defense, have unveiled plans to test nuclear-powered rockets that would one day fly humans to Mars.

Is NASA planning to test a nuclear-powered rocket engine?

South Korea and the United States are discussing planning and implementation of U.S. nuclear operations to counter North Korea, Seoul's presidential office said on Tuesday.

South Korea and U.S. discuss nuclear planning operations

US scientists announced a breakthrough on fusion energy, potentially a step toward one day harnessing the process that fires the sun to generate carbon-free electricity as the world struggles with climate change.

WION Climate Tracker: Can nuclear fusion save our planet?

The United States has blacklisted six Pakistani firms. India and US have warned about nuclear activities. These firms' access to software and tech will now be restricted.

The Pakistani 'nuclear underworld': US blacklists six Pakistani firms

The protests in China have had no impact on Beijing's ambitions of world domination. On Tuesday, Chinese jets violated South Korea's Air defence zone. A Pentagon report further claims China will have 1500 nuclear warheads by 2035. Priyanka Sharma reports.

Gravitas: China to possess 1500 nuclear warheads by 2035?

A new visit to Tehran is scheduled for this month, but the UN nuclear watchdog said Thursday that there had been no progress in talks with Iran regarding the presence of undeclared nuclear material at three locations.&nbsp;

The matter has come up in intermittent talks between Tehran and international powers to resurrect a historic 2015 agreement that intended to rein in Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

"The director general (Rafael Grossi) is seriously concerned that there has still been no progress in clarifying and resolving the outstanding safeguards issues," the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a report seen by AFP.

Before the end of November, senior agency representatives will travel to Tehran for a technical visit, the report stated.

"The agency has reiterated that at this meeting, it expects to start receiving from Iran technically credible explanations on these issues, including access to locations and material, as well as taking the samples as appropriate," it added.

The director general "reiterates that these issues... need to be resolved for the agency to be in a position to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful," it added.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-five-most-expensive-midterm-elections-532943">United States: Five most expensive contests in midterm elections</a>

Grossi stated in an interview with AFP on Thursday that the IAEA had been "trying to help them focus their answers so that we can have something in our hands" in meetings with Iranian officials ahead of the COP27 climate summit in Egypt.&nbsp;

A major issue that caused the IAEA board of governors to pass a resolution criticising Iran in June was the UN watchdog's pressure on Iran to provide information regarding the presence of nuclear material at three unannounced sites.&nbsp;

The IAEA's reports on Iran will be considered as usual at the board's upcoming regular meeting, which is scheduled for the following week.

(with inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

A new visit to Tehran is scheduled for this month, but the UN nuclear watchdog said Thursday that there had been no progress in talks with Iran regarding the presence of undeclared nuclear material at three locations.

A new visit to Tehran is scheduled for this month, but the UN nuclear watchdog said Thursday that there had been no progress in talks with Iran regarding the presence of undeclared nuclear material at three locations. The matter has come up in intermittent talks between Tehran and international powers to resurrect a historic 2015 agreement that intended to rein in Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. "The director general (Rafael Grossi) is seriously concerned that there has still been no progress in clarifying and resolving the outstanding safeguards issues," the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a report seen by AFP. Before the end of November, senior agency representatives will travel to Tehran for a technical visit, the report stated. "The agency has reiterated that at this meeting, it expects to start receiving from Iran technically credible explanations on these issues, including access to locations and material, as well as taking the samples as appropriate," it added. The director general "reiterates that these issues... need to be resolved for the agency to be in a position to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful," it added. Also Read: United States: Five most expensive contests in midterm elections Grossi stated in an interview with AFP on Thursday that the IAEA had been "trying to help them focus their answers so that we can have something in our hands" in meetings with Iranian officials ahead of the COP27 climate summit in Egypt. A major issue that caused the IAEA board of governors to pass a resolution criticising Iran in June was the UN watchdog's pressure on Iran to provide information regarding the presence of nuclear material at three unannounced sites. The IAEA's reports on Iran will be considered as usual at the board's upcoming regular meeting, which is scheduled for the following week. (with inputs from agencies)

IAEA says 'no progress' in discussions with Iran over undeclared nuclear material

The United States is planning to deploy up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to an air base in northern Australia amid heightened tensions with China.

US plans to deploy B-52 bombers in Australia amid China tensions

Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation on Sunday (October 23) said that email server of its subsidiary was hacked in a "foreign" attack aimed at drawing "attention". The development has taken place as the country tackles with mass protests triggered by the custodial death of 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini.

Amini died in custody after she was detained by Iran's morality police over 'inappropriate attire'. The nationwide protests her death sparked have seen people even calling on the Islamic regime to step away from power.

A group called Black Reward on Friday issued an ultimatum on Twitter, threatening to release documents on Tehran's nuclear programme unless all "political prisoners, prisoners of conscience and people arrested in the recent protests" were released within 24 hours.

Iran's nuclear agency acknowledged the&nbsp;hacking but the subsidiary downplayed the importance of leaked documents.

"Unauthorised access by a source originating from a specific foreign country to the email system of this company led to the publication of the content of some emails on social media," it said in a statement.Material on social media said to be released by the group on Saturday included a short clip from a purported nuclear site in Iran, as well as documents containing agreements, maps and payslips. 
 
The hacking group claimed &nbsp;it leaked 50 gigabytes of internal emails, contracts and construction plans related to Iran’s Russian-backed nuclear power plant in Bushehr on its Telegram channel.&nbsp;

Iran has previously accused the United States and Israel for cyberattacks that have impaired the country’s infrastructure.

“These illegal efforts out of desperation are aimed at attracting public attention,” the organization said.

The protests in Iran first focused on state-mandated hijab for women but transformed into a serious challenge&nbsp;to the country’s ruling clerics. Protesters now call for the downfall of the Islamic Republic itself.

(With inputs from agencies)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation on Sunday (October 23) said that email server of its subsidiary was hacked in a "foreign" attack aimed at drawing "attention". The development has taken place as the country tackles with mass protests triggered by the custodial death of 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini.

Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation on Sunday (October 23) said that email server of its subsidiary was hacked in a "foreign" attack aimed at drawing "attention". The development has taken place as the country tackles with mass protests triggered by the custodial death of 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini. Amini died in custody after she was detained by Iran's morality police over 'inappropriate attire'. The nationwide protests her death sparked have seen people even calling on the Islamic regime to step away from power. A group called Black Reward on Friday issued an ultimatum on Twitter, threatening to release documents on Tehran's nuclear programme unless all "political prisoners, prisoners of conscience and people arrested in the recent protests" were released within 24 hours. Iran's nuclear agency acknowledged the hacking but the subsidiary downplayed the importance of leaked documents. "Unauthorised access by a source originating from a specific foreign country to the email system of this company led to the publication of the content of some emails on social media," it said in a statement.Material on social media said to be released by the group on Saturday included a short clip from a purported nuclear site in Iran, as well as documents containing agreements, maps and payslips. The hacking group claimed it leaked 50 gigabytes of internal emails, contracts and construction plans related to Iran’s Russian-backed nuclear power plant in Bushehr on its Telegram channel. Iran has previously accused the United States and Israel for cyberattacks that have impaired the country’s infrastructure. “These illegal efforts out of desperation are aimed at attracting public attention,” the organization said. The protests in Iran first focused on state-mandated hijab for women but transformed into a serious challenge to the country’s ruling clerics. Protesters now call for the downfall of the Islamic Republic itself. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Hackers target subsidiary of Iran nuclear agency, demand release of prisoners held in recent protests

Historically, the relationship between India and Pakistan has been mired in conflicts, war, and lack of trust. Pakistan has continued to loom large on India’s horizon despite the growing gap between the two countries. Ambassador (retd) Sharat Sabharwal’s book "India’s Pakistan Conundrum: Managing a Complex Relationship" examines the nature of the Pakistani state, its internal dynamics, and its impact on India. The text looks at key issues of the India-Pakistan relationship, appraises a range of India’s policy options to address the Pakistan conundrum, and proposes a way forward for India’s Pakistan policy. Drawing on the author’s experience of two diplomatic stints in Pakistan, including as the High Commissioner of India, the book offers a unique insider’s perspective on this critical relationship.

Below are the selected excerpts from the book:

The Pakistan army sees nuclear arsenal as an umbrella under which they can use their terror card with impunity without inviting an Indian reprisal. One often heard it being said in Pakistan that there could be no war under a nuclear overhang. During my lectures to Pakistan army officers at their National Defence University, I told them that their statement would sound more meaningful if it were modified to state that there could be no war- overt or covert- under a nuclear overhang.

Pakistan is known to have acquired its nuclear weapon capability on the basis of the design of a bomb provided by China and a test reportedly conducted for Pakistan by China at its Lop Nur test site, much before it went overtly nuclear in 1998. Its nuclear blackmail also, therefore, started much before 1998. In an interview given to the veteran Indian journalist, Kuldip Nayar in January 1987, in the course of Operation Brasstacks, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, Dr. A.Q. Khan said, “They told us Pakistan could never produce the bomb, and they doubted my capabilities, but they know we have done it.” After Nayar went public with the story, Khan described the comments attributed to him as false and concocted, but the cat was already out of the bag. It is unlikely that someone in his sensitive position could have met an Indian journalist without authorisation from the higher quarters and made the above comment. It is, therefore, more than likely that he did it with due authorisation to hold out a nuclear threat to India. The subsequent denial seems to have been aimed at keeping Pakistan’s American patrons mollified.

In the middle of the night between May 27 and 28, 1998, the Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, Satish Chandra, was called in to the Pakistan Foreign Ministry by Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad and I accompanied him. The meeting took place past 1 am. Shamshad, who was accompanied by senior Foreign Ministry officials, said that they had credible information that India was going to attack their nuclear facilities. When asked how, Shamshad responded that the attack was perhaps to be mounted by F16 aircraft stationed at the Chennai airfield and added that he had been instructed by his government to inform the Government of India through the High Commissioner that in the event of such an attack, there would be "massive retaliation with devastating consequences." The High Commissioner expressed his surprise at what Shamshad had said. He

pointed out that India did not possess F 16 aircraft. Shamshad said that the aircraft he had referred to could be Israeli. The High Commissioner also enquired whether the Foreign Secretary had talked of a possible attack against the nuclear installations and facilities included in the list given by Pakistan to India at the beginning of every year under the bilateral agreement on the prohibition of attack against the nuclear installations of each other. Shamshad mumbled that he had referred to those and “other” facilities. The meeting wrapped up in a few minutes with the High Commissioner assuring Shamshad that his demarche would be conveyed to the Government of India. The High Commissioner and I went to the High Commission to report the rather alarmist and unusual demarche of our hosts to New Delhi. In view of its nature, we decided to convey it on phone before sending a cable. But we found that for the capital of the country, which according to the Pakistanis was about to mount an attack of major import against their country, New Delhi seemed extraordinarily relaxed and it took us some time to reach the Indian Foreign Secretary, who had been alerted to the Pakistani demarche a few minutes earlier by the Indian Mission to the UN in New York. Unknown to us, the Pakistanis had also taken up the matter with all the P5 countries in their capitals and through their Missions to the UN in New York.

High Commissioner Chandra and I discussed Shamshad Ahmad’s demarche before sending our assessment to Delhi. It was our considered view that the Pakistanis were on the verge of carrying out their nuclear tests ( which happened on May 28) and were nervous about India attacking their testing site in the Chagai hills of Balochistan, which did not figure in the lists given to India at the beginning of every year under the agreement on the prohibition of attack against the nuclear installations of each other. That explained Shamshad's use of the word "other" while answering High Commissioner’s query about the facilities that he had in mind.

The policy of massive retaliation was announced by the then US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in 1954 when he said that the US would protect its allies through the deterrent of massive retaliatory power. His reference was to reliance on the American nuclear arsenal against a Soviet aggression. Since then, the term “massive retaliation” has come to denote disproportionate retaliation with nuclear weapons to an attack by an adversary. Therefore, in using the expression “massive retaliation with devastating consequences”, Shamshad had spoken of a nuclear response, thereby confirming the Indian position that Pakistan already possessed nuclear weapons capability acquired with the Chinese help. The impending tests were meant, inter alia, to bring this capability into the open. The Pakistanis surely did not believe that India would take any such action lying down and would not retaliate with whatever nuclear capability it had at that stage. All in all, it seems to have been a case of overreaction and nuclear bluster in response to a non-existent threat.

Years later, a retired Pakistan Foreign Office official, who was present at our meeting with Shamshad Ahmad, told me that they had reports of the presence of Israeli aircraft at the Chennai airfield with the aim to attack their nuclear testing site in Balochistan. At the same time, there was a US naval presence off the coast of Karachi. Their defence experts believed that if the reports of an attack being planned from India were correct, the US ships would move away before it was mounted and the ships did move away on May 27. These developments convinced them of the need of an urgent demarche. From what my interlocutor told me, they seemed to believe that the Americans were complicit in the plan to attack the Chagai hills testing site.

*****

Reproduced from India's Pakistan Conundrum: Managing a Complex Relationship by Sharat Sabharwal with permission of INFORMA UK Limited through PLSclear. No part of this extract may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Historically, the relationship between India and Pakistan has been mired in conflicts, war, and lack of trust. Pakistan has continued to loom large on India’s horizon despite the growing gap between the two countries.

Historically, the relationship between India and Pakistan has been mired in conflicts, war, and lack of trust. Pakistan has continued to loom large on India’s horizon despite the growing gap between the two countries. Ambassador (retd) Sharat Sabharwal’s book "India’s Pakistan Conundrum: Managing a Complex Relationship" examines the nature of the Pakistani state, its internal dynamics, and its impact on India. The text looks at key issues of the India-Pakistan relationship, appraises a range of India’s policy options to address the Pakistan conundrum, and proposes a way forward for India’s Pakistan policy. Drawing on the author’s experience of two diplomatic stints in Pakistan, including as the High Commissioner of India, the book offers a unique insider’s perspective on this critical relationship. Below are the selected excerpts from the book: The Pakistan army sees nuclear arsenal as an umbrella under which they can use their terror card with impunity without inviting an Indian reprisal. One often heard it being said in Pakistan that there could be no war under a nuclear overhang. During my lectures to Pakistan army officers at their National Defence University, I told them that their statement would sound more meaningful if it were modified to state that there could be no war- overt or covert- under a nuclear overhang. Pakistan is known to have acquired its nuclear weapon capability on the basis of the design of a bomb provided by China and a test reportedly conducted for Pakistan by China at its Lop Nur test site, much before it went overtly nuclear in 1998. Its nuclear blackmail also, therefore, started much before 1998. In an interview given to the veteran Indian journalist, Kuldip Nayar in January 1987, in the course of Operation Brasstacks, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, Dr. A.Q. Khan said, “They told us Pakistan could never produce the bomb, and they doubted my capabilities, but they know we have done it.” After Nayar went public with the story, Khan described the comments attributed to him as false and concocted, but the cat was already out of the bag. It is unlikely that someone in his sensitive position could have met an Indian journalist without authorisation from the higher quarters and made the above comment. It is, therefore, more than likely that he did it with due authorisation to hold out a nuclear threat to India. The subsequent denial seems to have been aimed at keeping Pakistan’s American patrons mollified. In the middle of the night between May 27 and 28, 1998, the Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, Satish Chandra, was called in to the Pakistan Foreign Ministry by Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad and I accompanied him. The meeting took place past 1 am. Shamshad, who was accompanied by senior Foreign Ministry officials, said that they had credible information that India was going to attack their nuclear facilities. When asked how, Shamshad responded that the attack was perhaps to be mounted by F16 aircraft stationed at the Chennai airfield and added that he had been instructed by his government to inform the Government of India through the High Commissioner that in the event of such an attack, there would be "massive retaliation with devastating consequences." The High Commissioner expressed his surprise at what Shamshad had said. He pointed out that India did not possess F 16 aircraft. Shamshad said that the aircraft he had referred to could be Israeli. The High Commissioner also enquired whether the Foreign Secretary had talked of a possible attack against the nuclear installations and facilities included in the list given by Pakistan to India at the beginning of every year under the bilateral agreement on the prohibition of attack against the nuclear installations of each other. Shamshad mumbled that he had referred to those and “other” facilities. The meeting wrapped up in a few minutes with the High Commissioner assuring Shamshad that his demarche would be conveyed to the Government of India. The High Commissioner and I went to the High Commission to report the rather alarmist and unusual demarche of our hosts to New Delhi. In view of its nature, we decided to convey it on phone before sending a cable. But we found that for the capital of the country, which according to the Pakistanis was about to mount an attack of major import against their country, New Delhi seemed extraordinarily relaxed and it took us some time to reach the Indian Foreign Secretary, who had been alerted to the Pakistani demarche a few minutes earlier by the Indian Mission to the UN in New York. Unknown to us, the Pakistanis had also taken up the matter with all the P5 countries in their capitals and through their Missions to the UN in New York. High Commissioner Chandra and I discussed Shamshad Ahmad’s demarche before sending our assessment to Delhi. It was our considered view that the Pakistanis were on the verge of carrying out their nuclear tests ( which happened on May 28) and were nervous about India attacking their testing site in the Chagai hills of Balochistan, which did not figure in the lists given to India at the beginning of every year under the agreement on the prohibition of attack against the nuclear installations of each other. That explained Shamshad's use of the word "other" while answering High Commissioner’s query about the facilities that he had in mind. The policy of massive retaliation was announced by the then US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in 1954 when he said that the US would protect its allies through the deterrent of massive retaliatory power. His reference was to reliance on the American nuclear arsenal against a Soviet aggression. Since then, the term “massive retaliation” has come to denote disproportionate retaliation with nuclear weapons to an attack by an adversary. Therefore, in using the expression “massive retaliation with devastating consequences”, Shamshad had spoken of a nuclear response, thereby confirming the Indian position that Pakistan already possessed nuclear weapons capability acquired with the Chinese help. The impending tests were meant, inter alia, to bring this capability into the open. The Pakistanis surely did not believe that India would take any such action lying down and would not retaliate with whatever nuclear capability it had at that stage. All in all, it seems to have been a case of overreaction and nuclear bluster in response to a non-existent threat. Years later, a retired Pakistan Foreign Office official, who was present at our meeting with Shamshad Ahmad, told me that they had reports of the presence of Israeli aircraft at the Chennai airfield with the aim to attack their nuclear testing site in Balochistan. At the same time, there was a US naval presence off the coast of Karachi. Their defence experts believed that if the reports of an attack being planned from India were correct, the US ships would move away before it was mounted and the ships did move away on May 27. These developments convinced them of the need of an urgent demarche. From what my interlocutor told me, they seemed to believe that the Americans were complicit in the plan to attack the Chagai hills testing site. ***** Reproduced from India's Pakistan Conundrum: Managing a Complex Relationship by Sharat Sabharwal with permission of INFORMA UK Limited through PLSclear. No part of this extract may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Pakistan’s nuclear brinkmanship

The post-Second World War decadal confrontation between the former USSR and the West, known as the Cold War, spawned both the theory and practice of deterrence. Conceptually, and practically deterrence, in the context of almost nuclear parity between the two entities, meant Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). &nbsp;Broken down, and roughly it meant that if a nuclear threshold (not to be confused with nuclear break out) was breached by one party, the other would respond with ‘massive retaliation’ decimating this party. In a convoluted way, MAD held peace till the former USSR dissolved on account of mostly internal contradictions. Obiter dictum, nuclear deterrence could also be used by states to pursue other policies under its shield. Deterrence, as a security concept was then applied by most states (It also has/had pure military connotations). If deterrence became central to the security problematique, then what do&nbsp;military successes of Ukrainians against Russian forces mean? Will deterrence continue to hold? Will it obtain peace?

Admittedly speculative, Ukraine’s latest military advances, may not have occurred without some outside and superior advice. War and success or failure in the same, is to belabor the obvious, about strategy. Or, in other words, it's how you organize and use your forces – no matter how limited or superior these are- it is superior strategy and organization that determine both your tactical and strategic successes. If speculation about Ukrainian forces being offered superior advice on strategy and battlefield tactics is right, then it may be that Western strategists have offered it. The advice would naturally be predicated on a robust understanding of the posture -historical and contemporary – of Russian forces, their generalship and its reflex, factoring in of Russian’s strengths, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. In other words, the Russian military approach would have been war-gamed and then presented to the Ukrainians who then may have incorporated these into their military maneuvers and tactics.

If this theory holds, then it would not be lost on Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s ostensible premise for invading Ukraine – NATO expansion, regime change in Ukraine etc- appear to be just these: ostensible rationales. The real agenda does not appear to &nbsp;be to reclaim the former USSR but to create a Greater Russia- a Russia that is in Putin’s eyes redeemed and restored to its civilizational glory. There then is both prestige and maximalist inherent in Russia’s war aims. This is overlaid by the realignment of global politics and international relations – the kind that suggests a Cold War 2.0 is in the making. Against this larger backdrop and canvas, what lessons would Putin draw from his troops’ debacle?

That the West is serious and determined to thwart his agenda is the answer. Given that the war has dragged on for six months now and that yesterday’s military advance of the Ukrainians was not only a military debacle but also carried a demonstration and rhetorical effect that would boost Ukrainians morale(in effect shaping them as a nation and thus strengthening their resolve), Putin basically has two choices.

One is total war. This would call for all out mobilization of the Russian polity, society and the state. But this approach has clear limitations: it would not only exhaust Russia but leave it drained against the backdrop of unprecedented sanctions. Besides the obvious economic problems this poses, the approach is fraught with political risk for Russia.

The other , more dark and more ominous is that Putin may consider nuclear deterrence a dead letter, so to speak. This would entail not just the implied threat of nuclear weapons but their actual use. Of course, this is an apocalyptic measure but when zero sum thinking dominates, apocalypse now could in the minds of the leader of a state mean a better option than a retreat- something that could be very costly for Putin politically. The hope and the wish here is that good sense prevails and nukes are not used – either as a first or last resort.

But even if nukes are not used, what does all this mean for deterrence?

I think given the grand realignment and rejigg that is taking place in the chessboard of international politics, deterrence or more accurately nuclear deterrence, while not entirely dead, would lose its value in terms of nuclear weapons and the doctrines governing their use as the ultimate security guarantor. Yesterday’s Ukrainian advances and Russian losses are ominous. The hope, to repeat is, that none of this comes to pass. But states across the world would have taken notice and there would be paradigm shifts in the offing. But all said and done, if deterrence as the ultimate security guarantor will fail, then what governs relations between states in an anarchic world? What can lead to relative peace? What can prevent nuclear Armageddon?

To answer this question, I will hark back to the theory I have propounded in some of my essays: wars are not , necessarily and always a ‘continuation of state policy’ These , often times, begin &nbsp;in the minds of statesmen. This, of course , is a theory, but if it holds, then perhaps only statesmen can end it.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

The post-Second World War decadal confrontation between the former USSR and the West, known as the Cold War, spawned both the theory and practice of deterrence. Conceptually, and practically deterrence, in the context of almost nuclear parity between the two entities, meant Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

The post-Second World War decadal confrontation between the former USSR and the West, known as the Cold War, spawned both the theory and practice of deterrence. Conceptually, and practically deterrence, in the context of almost nuclear parity between the two entities, meant Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Broken down, and roughly it meant that if a nuclear threshold (not to be confused with nuclear break out) was breached by one party, the other would respond with ‘massive retaliation’ decimating this party. In a convoluted way, MAD held peace till the former USSR dissolved on account of mostly internal contradictions. Obiter dictum, nuclear deterrence could also be used by states to pursue other policies under its shield. Deterrence, as a security concept was then applied by most states (It also has/had pure military connotations). If deterrence became central to the security problematique, then what do military successes of Ukrainians against Russian forces mean? Will deterrence continue to hold? Will it obtain peace? Admittedly speculative, Ukraine’s latest military advances, may not have occurred without some outside and superior advice. War and success or failure in the same, is to belabor the obvious, about strategy. Or, in other words, it's how you organize and use your forces – no matter how limited or superior these are- it is superior strategy and organization that determine both your tactical and strategic successes. If speculation about Ukrainian forces being offered superior advice on strategy and battlefield tactics is right, then it may be that Western strategists have offered it. The advice would naturally be predicated on a robust understanding of the posture -historical and contemporary – of Russian forces, their generalship and its reflex, factoring in of Russian’s strengths, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. In other words, the Russian military approach would have been war-gamed and then presented to the Ukrainians who then may have incorporated these into their military maneuvers and tactics. If this theory holds, then it would not be lost on Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s ostensible premise for invading Ukraine – NATO expansion, regime change in Ukraine etc- appear to be just these: ostensible rationales. The real agenda does not appear to be to reclaim the former USSR but to create a Greater Russia- a Russia that is in Putin’s eyes redeemed and restored to its civilizational glory. There then is both prestige and maximalist inherent in Russia’s war aims. This is overlaid by the realignment of global politics and international relations – the kind that suggests a Cold War 2.0 is in the making. Against this larger backdrop and canvas, what lessons would Putin draw from his troops’ debacle? That the West is serious and determined to thwart his agenda is the answer. Given that the war has dragged on for six months now and that yesterday’s military advance of the Ukrainians was not only a military debacle but also carried a demonstration and rhetorical effect that would boost Ukrainians morale(in effect shaping them as a nation and thus strengthening their resolve), Putin basically has two choices. One is total war. This would call for all out mobilization of the Russian polity, society and the state. But this approach has clear limitations: it would not only exhaust Russia but leave it drained against the backdrop of unprecedented sanctions. Besides the obvious economic problems this poses, the approach is fraught with political risk for Russia. The other , more dark and more ominous is that Putin may consider nuclear deterrence a dead letter, so to speak. This would entail not just the implied threat of nuclear weapons but their actual use. Of course, this is an apocalyptic measure but when zero sum thinking dominates, apocalypse now could in the minds of the leader of a state mean a better option than a retreat- something that could be very costly for Putin politically. The hope and the wish here is that good sense prevails and nukes are not used – either as a first or last resort. But even if nukes are not used, what does all this mean for deterrence? I think given the grand realignment and rejigg that is taking place in the chessboard of international politics, deterrence or more accurately nuclear deterrence, while not entirely dead, would lose its value in terms of nuclear weapons and the doctrines governing their use as the ultimate security guarantor. Yesterday’s Ukrainian advances and Russian losses are ominous. The hope, to repeat is, that none of this comes to pass. But states across the world would have taken notice and there would be paradigm shifts in the offing. But all said and done, if deterrence as the ultimate security guarantor will fail, then what governs relations between states in an anarchic world? What can lead to relative peace? What can prevent nuclear Armageddon? To answer this question, I will hark back to the theory I have propounded in some of my essays: wars are not , necessarily and always a ‘continuation of state policy’ These , often times, begin in the minds of statesmen. This, of course , is a theory, but if it holds, then perhaps only statesmen can end it. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Will Ukrainian battlefield successes kill nuclear deterrence?

Two ships carrying reprocessed nuclear fuel destined for Japan set sail Saturday morning from northern France, an AFP photographer said, despite criticism from environmental campaigners.

The fuel was due to leave the northern French port city of Cherbourg earlier this month but was delayed by the breakdown of loading equipment.

Environmental activists have denounced the practice of transporting such highly radioactive materials, calling it irresponsible.

The previous transport of MOX fuel to Japan in September 2021 drew protests from the environmental group Greenpeace.&nbsp;

MOX fuel is a mixture of reprocessed plutonium and uranium.

"The Pacific Heron and Pacific Egret, the specialised ships belonging to British company PNTL, left Cherbourg harbour on September 17. They will ensure the shipment of MOX nuclear fuel to Japan," French nuclear technology group Orano said in a statement Saturday.

They are bound for Japan for use in a power plant and Orano said it expected the shipment to arrive in November.

Japan lacks facilities to process waste from its own nuclear reactors and sends most of it overseas, particularly to France.

The operation was carried out "successfully", Orano said, and it is the second shipment that arrived in Cherbourg from a plant in La Hague, located 20 kilometres (12 miles) away, after the first came on September 7.

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pics-anti-monarchy-protests-in-britain-citizens-say-not-my-king-ask-who-elected-him-517125">&nbsp;IN PICS| Anti-monarchy protests in Britain: Citizens say 'Not my King', ask 'who elected him?'</a>

Yannick Rousselet of Greenpeace France previously denounced the shipment.

"Transporting such dangerous materials from a nuclear proliferation point of view is completely irresponsible," he said last month.

MOX is composed of 92 per cent uranium oxide and eight per cent plutonium oxide, according to Orano.&nbsp;

The plutonium "is not the same as that used by the military," it said.

 
&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

Two ships carrying reprocessed nuclear fuel destined for Japan set sail Saturday morning from northern France, an AFP photographer said, despite criticism from environmental campaigners.

Two ships carrying reprocessed nuclear fuel destined for Japan set sail Saturday morning from northern France, an AFP photographer said, despite criticism from environmental campaigners. The fuel was due to leave the northern French port city of Cherbourg earlier this month but was delayed by the breakdown of loading equipment. Environmental activists have denounced the practice of transporting such highly radioactive materials, calling it irresponsible. The previous transport of MOX fuel to Japan in September 2021 drew protests from the environmental group Greenpeace. MOX fuel is a mixture of reprocessed plutonium and uranium. "The Pacific Heron and Pacific Egret, the specialised ships belonging to British company PNTL, left Cherbourg harbour on September 17. They will ensure the shipment of MOX nuclear fuel to Japan," French nuclear technology group Orano said in a statement Saturday. They are bound for Japan for use in a power plant and Orano said it expected the shipment to arrive in November. Japan lacks facilities to process waste from its own nuclear reactors and sends most of it overseas, particularly to France. The operation was carried out "successfully", Orano said, and it is the second shipment that arrived in Cherbourg from a plant in La Hague, located 20 kilometres (12 miles) away, after the first came on September 7. Also Read: IN PICS| Anti-monarchy protests in Britain: Citizens say 'Not my King', ask 'who elected him?' Yannick Rousselet of Greenpeace France previously denounced the shipment. "Transporting such dangerous materials from a nuclear proliferation point of view is completely irresponsible," he said last month. MOX is composed of 92 per cent uranium oxide and eight per cent plutonium oxide, according to Orano. The plutonium "is not the same as that used by the military," it said.

France sends latest nuclear shipment to Japan despite criticism from environmental campaigners

Detonating a nuclear bomb on Mars has many backers and opposers. Some advocate it by saying it will make the red planet habitable while others oppose it by saying it may cause a nuclear winter.

What will happen if humans were to nuke mars?

As India celebrates 75 years of Independence, take a look at our special series India at 75 where we count major events from India since 1947.

India at 75: Pokhran-II: Series of 5 nuclear test explosions in 1998

In pics: Artists paint sunflowers on cars destroyed during Ukraine war, represent peace and unity

nuclear

Nuclear, News on Nuclear, stories on Nuclear, articles on Nuclear, Nuclear stories at Wion, Nuclear news, Nuclear latest news