• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

New Report Addresses Critiques of U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation


In a new report, Atoms for War?: U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal, Carnegie Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis argues empirically that natural uranium resources do not limitIndia's potential nuclear arsenal and that any limitations inIndia's nuclear fuel stockpile stem from short-term problems that, in fact, give theU.S.little leverage overIndia.  Tellis argues that Indian policy-makers display no intention nor practice of dramatically building up their nuclear weapon arsenal and that the proposed U.S.-India deal will not causeIndiato do so or augment its capacity to do so in significant ways.

 

The report states thatIndiais not seeking to maximize its nuclear arsenal as demonstrated byIndia’s decision to produce far less fissile material than its capacity allows given its natural uranium reserves. Tellis argues thatIndia’s short-term deficiency of uranium fuel is due to technical hindrances in its uranium mining and milling practices. He maintains thatIndiahas the capability to rectify this shortcoming independently.

 

Tellis also addresses the contentious issue of whether the deal violates Article I of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He states that the NPT legally allows for nuclear cooperation between nuclear-weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states on safeguarded facilities, even if the country has not committed to full-scope safeguards. Tellis asserts that critiques that the U.S.-India nuclear deal violates Article I lead “inexorably to the conclusion that no party to the NPT should have any economic intercourse withIndiawhatsoever, because the resulting gains from trade would inevitably free up some domestic Indian resources that would be of use toNew Delhi’s weapons program.”

 

To access the full report, click here. 


Link Copied
By Caterina Dutto
Published on Jun 27, 2006

In a new report, Atoms for War?: U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal, Carnegie Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis argues empirically that natural uranium resources do not limit India's potential nuclear arsenal and that any limitations in India's nuclear fuel stockpile stem from short-term problems that, in fact, give the U.S. little leverage over India.  Tellis argues that Indian policy-makers display no intention nor practice of dramatically building up their nuclear weapon arsenal and that the proposed U.S.-India deal will not cause India to do so or augment its capacity to do so in significant ways.

 

The report states that India is not seeking to maximize its nuclear arsenal as demonstrated by India’s decision to produce far less fissile material than its capacity allows given its natural uranium reserves. Tellis argues that India’s short-term deficiency of uranium fuel is due to technical hindrances in its uranium mining and milling practices. He maintains that India has the capability to rectify this shortcoming independently.

 

Tellis also addresses the contentious issue of whether the deal violates Article I of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He states that the NPT legally allows for nuclear cooperation between nuclear-weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states on safeguarded facilities, even if the country has not committed to full-scope safeguards. Tellis asserts that critiques that the U.S.-India nuclear deal violates Article I lead “inexorably to the conclusion that no party to the NPT should have any economic intercourse with India whatsoever, because the resulting gains from trade would inevitably free up some domestic Indian resources that would be of use to New Delhi’s weapons program.”

 

To access the full report, click here. 

About the Author

Caterina Dutto

Former Research Assistant

Caterina Dutto
Former Research Assistant
North AmericaUnited StatesIndiaNuclear PolicyNuclear Energy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?

    A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran

    In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers. 

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Lebanon Needs a New Negotiating Strategy with Israel

    Unless Beirut lowers expectations, any setbacks will end up bolstering Hezbollah’s narrative.

      Mohanad Hage Ali

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran

    Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks

    Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.  

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.