Mint Explainer: How ‘dirty bomb’ has conjured up nuclear fears

How have nuclear tensions increased?

NATO is currently staging its annual nuclear exercises, termed Steadfast Noon, with 14 countries. The exercises, which feature over 60 aircraft from participating countries, will rely on the controversial nuclear-sharing principle. This means that allied powers, many of whom do not possess their own nuclear capability, will be trained in the use of American nuclear weapons. NATO claims that the timing of the exercise, which takes place even as the war in Ukraine worsens, is not targeted towards a particular country. Meanwhile, Russia has also conducted its own nuclear drills by testing nuclear-capable submarines, bombers and an intercontinental ballistic missile. In recent weeks, Moscow has also accused Ukraine of preparing a “dirty bomb”, a conventional weapon that contains radioactive material.

You might also like

Does RBI need to listen to IMF on forex?

Centre may revamp Trai, give it more teeth 

What’s worrying Kotak Mahindra Bank investors

Watch the gaps in insurance for mental illness

What is a “dirty bomb”?

Dirty bombs are intended to function as mass-disruption weapons. They combine the capability of conventional weapons with radioactive material that can be sourced from hospitals, power plants and research laboratories. They are cheaper and easier to manufacture than nuclear weapons and do not bring any of their destructive capability to the table. However, such bombs may cause radioactive material to spread widely and may even cause certain areas to become uninhabitable. This may cause mass evacuations of affected areas. While bombings using such weapons have been attempted in the past, notably by Chechen fighters in the 1990s, none of these actions have been successful.

Why do these drills and Russian accusations matter?

Russia last held its nuclear drills mere days before invading Ukraine in February. The country recently placed its nuclear forces in a heightened state of readiness. Further, President Vladimir Putin of Russia has alluded to the use of nuclear weapons after Ukraine made major territorial gains in regions that Moscow has annexed. This has sparked fears that Russia may be considering limited nuclear use in the field of battle.

Accusing Ukraine of manufacturing “dirty bombs” is also worrying. Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu has been vocal about his concerns and has raised the issue with his counterparts in the United States, United Kingdom, France and even India. Some speculate that the Russian government hopes to conduct a “false-flag attack” which would involve the use of a dirty bomb and subsequently blaming it on Ukrainian forces. Other analysts have junked this possibility.

How have both sides reacted?

Western powers like the US have categorically rejected Russia’s accusations against Ukraine.

The United States, France and Britain put out a joint statement, terming Russian allegations as “transparently false”.

The spokesperson for America’s National Security Council was blunter. “The Russians have, on occasion, blamed others for things that they were planning to do.” said John Kirby of the NSC.

Russia has remained undeterred by these accusations. According to media reports, Moscow has raised the matter in the United Nations Security Council. In particular, the Russian ambassador is said to have called on Western nations to stop Ukraine from conducting an “act of nuclear terrorism”.

What does this mean for the war in Ukraine?

At one level, the escalating war of words over nuclear use has sharply raised the temperature of the conflict. America’s Pentagon has already warned that “there would be consequences” if Russia were to resort to the use of nuclear weapons or a dirty bomb in Ukraine.

Dangling the possibility of nuclear weapons to scare opponents into submission is a new and dangerous development in international politics. Not since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 has the threat posed by nuclear weapons use by major powers seemed so acute.

Elsewhere in Mint

In Opinion, Jaspreet Bindra argues moonlighting might invert the traditional pyramid of work. Harsh V. Pant says a new era of great power contestation has begun. Palakh Jain & Shreya Ganguly tell why India should liberalize tax regime for expats. Long Story maps AAP’s prospects in Gujarat.