The nuclear "rules" allow five nations to legally possess nukes (with only vague assurances to disarm without any timelines or guarantees, which they have no intention of following through) while the rest cannot do so. What kind of "rules" are they?
No nation has the ethical authority to "penalize" another nation. Not especially when the chastiser happens to be the biggest proliferator in the world.
An exception for the sake of stability would be an unstable nation that is prone to actually use nukes is understandable. But India is a stable democracy. Its credentials in this regard are as good as (if not better than) the USA.
Krepon’s choice of words “penalize” smacks of intense chauvinism and borders on racism.
Every non-nuclear country that signed the NPT did so because it benefitted from it by receiving technology. Krepon says one right thing - “responsible” behavior needs to be “incentivised”.
Let us see what incentives India would have to sign the NPT.
India – which already had begun developing its own nuclear weapons program, would have gained absolutely nothing by signing the NPT in 1968. On the other hand, its security was seriously threatened by an "accepted" nuclear power - China!
Other major nations - Germany, Japan, etc. are firmly protected by the American nuclear umbrella. India, 4 times bigger than the US in term of population, and with a history of foreign occupation, did not enjoy any such security guarantees.
To understand India's legitimate security concerns, how would Americans have felt if the former Soviet Union had weapons, but America didn't? Would America have signed the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state for the sake of disarmament?
Doesn’t every person on the planet have equal rights to security?
So let us see Krepon spell it out in clear terms: What is India’s incentive to sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state, NMr. Krepon?
Besides, what exactly is this “responsible” behavior that Krepon is talking about? Is the US a “responsible” power, but not India? Why not? Is China, the source of Pakistan’s weapons a “responsible” power?
Krepon’s answer must be that the other nuclear nations have committed to fissile material cutoff, and not conduct further tests. But then Krepon himself has proffered a rationale for this apparent discrepancy. The other nuclear nations have tested and already possess thermonuclear warheads. India’s design is not yet complete. Wouldn’t truly “responsible” behavior then have been displayed if they had not tested further? Didn’t China and France conduct a series of 10 tests each in 1994 before agreeing cease further tests?
What about the US continuing to develop newer warheads after having amassed enough nuclear test data, to carry out simulations under what it euphemistically calls its nuclear “stewardship” program? What about recent sub-kiloton weapons tests, which the US continues to do? Are these examples of ”responsible” behavior, Mr. Krepon?
Or is it that continued possession and development of nuclear weapons in the hands of a Caucasian country alone considered “responsible”?
Krepon’s choice of words – “responsible” – defies any rational explanation.
The last issue is safeguards “in perpetuity”. Why does Krepon not give an account of how many nuclear installations in the USA, UK, France, Russia, or China are under permanent IAEA safeguards – more specifically, USA or UK? Or are Anglo-saxon nations to be trusted more than India? Why does the US not lead by example and allow IAEA safeguards on its own soil – in perpetuity? Why do the US and China not ratify the CTBT? Why do the US or the UK not stop further nuclear warhead development? Why does the US not take steps towards genuine disarmament? Now those would be genuine examples of responsible behavior, wouldn’t they Mr. Krepon?
