Had it not been for the global concern with respect to 'climate change', the nuclear states with a large stockpile of weapons would not have allowed other countries to adopt nuclear energy, said Dr Anil Kakodkar, member of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Kakodkar was speaking at the inaugural session of three day international seminar on Nuclear Disarmament: Global steps towards Human Security organised by Vidya Prasarak Mandal in Mumbai [ Images ]. "Currently the climate change issue has more destructive potential than nuclear proliferation by non-nuclear states and hence change in the stance of nuclear giants," said Kakodkar.
He said that though nuclear disarmament has achieved a lot of practical meaning in today's world. "I do not think the world will see it (nuclear disarmament) happen in the foreseeable future. Creating a perception that everybody's security is taken care of is prerequisite for nuclear disarmament," Kakodkar said.
Former Indian foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal also speaking at the seminar said that the United States of America and Russia [ Images ] were in possession of 90 per cent of world's nuclear weapon stockpile. "If the two most powerful countries in the world feel insecure to create one of the largest nuclear weapon's stockpile then aren't the weaker countries entitled to feel insecure?" questioned Sibal.
Kakodkar said that the proliferation resistance system being worked out by nuclear states will take take another 20 years to come into effect. He explained that there was a window of opportunity by exploiting the existing technology to ensure that nuclear material heading for the reactors is not misused for production of weapons. "When 20 per cent Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) and thorium is used as fuel for reactor instead of plutonium, it will be extremely difficult to be misuse it manufacture weapons," he said.
Sibal on the other hand cautioned against the stance that India [ Images ] should be proactive in nuclear disarmament."India's nuclear weapons stock is marginal compared to other nuclear nations. When we sit across the table we would have very little in terms of quantity to offer for nuclear disarmament. Being proactive, we would run the risk of being asked to match our words with actions and could end up in very difficult situation," said Sibal.