:India and weapons of mass destruction

{{Further|History of biological warfare}}

India has ratified the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and pledges to abide by its obligations. There is no clear evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that directly points toward an offensive BW program. India does possess the scientific capability and infrastructure to launch an offensive BW program. In terms of delivery, India also possesses the capability to produce aerosols and has numerous potential delivery systems ranging from crop dusters to sophisticated ballistic missiles.{{cite web |title=Research Library: Country Profiles: India Biological Chronology |url=http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/india/biological/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604055018/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/India/Biological/index.html |archive-date=4 June 2011 |access-date=16 July 2010 |publisher=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} No information exists in the public domain suggesting interest by the Indian government in the delivery of biological agents by these or any other means. To reiterate the latter point, in October 2002, then-President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam asserted that "India will not make biological weapons. It is cruel to human beings".

{{Further|Chemical weapon}}

In 1992, India signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), becoming one of the original signatories of the CWC in 1993,{{cite web|title=Member State – India|url=https://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/member-states-by-region/asia/member-state-india/|website=OPCW|access-date=5 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171026045513/https://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/member-states-by-region/asia/member-state-india/|archive-date=26 October 2017|url-status=dead}} and ratified it on 2 September 1996. According to India's ex-Army Chief General Sundarji, a country having the capability of making nuclear weapons does not need to have chemical weapons, since the dread of chemical weapons could be created only in those countries that do not have nuclear weapons. Others suggested that the fact that India has found chemical weapons dispensable highlighted its confidence in the conventional weapons system at its command.

In June 1997, India declared its stock of chemical weapons (1,045 tonnes of sulphur mustard).{{cite web |date=30 December 2007 |title=India to destroy chemical weapons stockpile by 2009 |url=http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2007/12/30/26543/India-to-destroy-chemical-weapons-stockpile-by-2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130907155755/http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2007/12/30/26543/India-to-destroy-chemical-weapons-stockpile-by-2009 |archive-date=7 September 2013 |access-date=30 April 2013 |work=Dominican Today}}{{cite web| author=Smithson, Amy Gaffney, Frank Jr. |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-3987660.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121106050759/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-3987660.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 November 2012 |title=India declares its stock of chemical weapons |access-date=30 April 2013 |website=India Abroad}} By the end of 2006, India had destroyed more than 75 percent of its chemical weapons/material stockpile and was granted an extension for destroying the remaining stocks by April 2009 and was expected to achieve 100 percent destruction within that time frame. India informed the United Nations in May 2009 that it had destroyed its stockpile of chemical weapons in compliance with the international Chemical Weapons Convention, making it the third country, after South Korea and Albania, to do so.{{cite web|url=http://zeenews.india.com/news531700.html |title= India destroys its chemical weapons stockpile |publisher=Zee News |date=14 May 2009 |access-date=30 April 2013}}Ritu Sharma (14 May 2009). [http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090514/812/tnl-india-destroys-its-chemical-weapons.html India destroys its chemical weapons stockpile]. IANS. Yahoo News. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090521195550/http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090514/812/tnl-india-destroys-its-chemical-weapons.html|date=21 May 2009}}. This was cross-checked by inspectors of the United Nations.

India has an advanced commercial chemical industry, and produces the bulk of its chemicals for domestic consumption. It is also widely acknowledged that India has an extensive civilian chemical and pharmaceutical industry and annually exports considerable quantities of chemicals to countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Taiwan.{{cite web |title=Research Library: Country Profiles: India Biological Chronology |url=http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/india/chemical/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100411054933/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/India/Chemical/index.html |archive-date=11 April 2010 |access-date=16 July 2010 |publisher=Nuclear Threat Initiative}}

{{see also|India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement}}

{{Further|Strategic Forces Command}}

As early as 26 June 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru, soon to be India's first Prime Minister, announced: {{cquote|As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal.B. M. Udgaonkar, [http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan25/articles20.htm India’s nuclear capability, her security concerns and the recent tests], Indian Academy of Sciences, January 1999.}}

Nehru pursued a policy of formally foregoing nuclear weapons while at the same time constructing a civilian nuclear energy program and by extension the capability to make a nuclear bomb. This policy was motivated by a conventional weapons superiority over its rivals Pakistan and China.{{Citation|title=The Varieties of Hedgers: India, Japan, West Germany, Brazil and Argentina, Sweden and Switzerland|date=2020-12-31|url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780691223063-005/html|work=Seeking the Bomb: Strategies of Nuclear Proliferation|pages=53–126|publisher=Princeton University Press|doi=10.1515/9780691223063-005|isbn=978-0-691-22306-3|access-date=2022-01-20}} India built its first research reactor in 1956 and its first plutonium reprocessing plant by 1964.[http://barc.gov.in/reactor/index.html Bhabha Atomic Research Centre]{{cite web |title=Apsara Research Reactor |url=http://www.nti.org/facilities/818/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419042039/http://www.nti.org/facilities/818/ |archive-date=19 April 2015 |access-date=12 April 2015 |publisher=Nuclear Threat Initiative}}[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB187/IN03.pdf Plutonium Plant at Trombay]. National Security Archive. 1964. India's nuclear programme can trace its origins to March 1944 and its three-stage efforts in technology were established by Homi Jehangir Bhabha when he founded the nuclear research center, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.{{cite book|last=Chengappa|first=Raj|title=Weapons of peace : the secret story of India's quest to be a nuclear power|year=2000|publisher=Harper Collins Publishers, India|location=New Delhi|isbn=978-81-7223-330-3}}{{cite web |date=30 March 2001 |title=India's Nuclear Weapons Program. The Beginning: 1944–1960 |url=http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaOrigin.html |access-date=15 January 2013 |publisher=Nuclear weapon archive}}

India's loss to China in a brief Himalayan border war in October 1962, provided the New Delhi government impetus for developing nuclear weapons as a means of deterring potential Chinese aggression.{{cite web |url=http://nationalinterest.org/article/jfks-overshadowed-crisis-7073?page=show |title=JFK's Overshadowed Crisis |publisher=The National Interest |author=Bruce Riedel |author-link=Bruce Riedel |date=28 June 2012 |access-date = 7 July 2012}} By 1964 India was in a position to develop nuclear weapons.{{Cite web |date=19 May 2016 |agency=PTI |title=India could have gone nuclear as early as 1964: US intelligence |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-could-have-gone-nuclear-as-early-as-1964-us-intelligence/articleshow/52340895.cms |access-date=2022-04-07 |website=The Times of India}} Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri opposed developing nuclear weapons but fell under intense political pressure, including elements within the ruling Indian National Congress. India was also unable to obtain security guarantees from either the United States or the Soviet Union. As a result, Shastri announced that India would pursue the capability of what it called "peaceful nuclear explosions" that could be weaponized in the future.

India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 (code-named "Smiling Buddha"), under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as a peaceful nuclear explosion. The test used plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor, and raised concerns that nuclear technology supplied for peaceful purposes could be diverted to weapons purposes. This also stimulated the early work of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.[http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/India/Nuclear/2296_6267.html India Profile. Nuclear Chronology 1974–1975.] Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2006. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081001012955/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/india/nuclear/2296_6267.html|date=1 October 2008}} During the 1970s and the 1980s Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, and Rajiv Gandhi opposed weaponizing its nuclear program beyond PNE and theoretical research. In 1982, Indira Gandhi refused to allow the Defence Research and Development Organisation to develop active nuclear weapons but also approved the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme that would develop missiles to deliver a nuclear warhead if India developed one. India also supported international nuclear non-proliferation and arms control efforts.

The situation changed again in the late 1980s after the 1987 Brasstacks crisis and the beginning of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. In 1989, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi gave Defense Secretary Naresh Chandra approval to develop the bomb. Chandra continued the program through successive governments in the 1990s after Gandhi lost power in the 1989 general election. India most likely completed weaponized nuclear warheads around 1994. India performed further nuclear tests in 1998 (code-named "Operation Shakti") under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In 1998, as a response to the continuing tests, the United States and Japan imposed sanctions on India, which have since been lifted.{{cite web |last=Wagner |first=Alex |date=2001 |title=Bush Waives Nuclear-Related Sanctions on India, Pakistan |url=https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_10/sanctionsoct01 |publisher=Arms Control Association}}

R Chidambaram, who headed India's Pokhran-II nuclear tests, said in a 1999 interview with the Press Trust of India that India is capable of producing a neutron bomb.{{cite web |last=Karp |first=Jonathan |date=17 August 1999 |title=India Discloses It Is Able To Build a Neutron Bomb |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB934836102919955535 |url-access=subscription |work=The Wall Street Journal}}

India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine{{cite web |date=17 August 1999 |title=Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine |url=http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091205231912/http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html |archive-date=5 December 2009 |publisher=Embassy of India, Washington DC |access-date=30 April 2013}} which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only". The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his 'designated successor(s)'. According to the NRDC, despite the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001–2002, India remained committed to its nuclear no-first-use policy.

India's Strategic Nuclear Command was formally established in 2003, with an Indian Air Force officer, Air Marshal Tej Mohan Asthana, as the Commander-in-Chief. The Joint Services SNC is the custodian of all of India's nuclear weapons, missiles and defense assets. It is also responsible for executing all aspects of India's nuclear policy. However, the civil leadership, in the form of the CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) is the only body authorised to order a nuclear strike against another offending strike. The National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon reiterated a policy of "no first use" against nuclear weapon states and "non-use against non-nuclear weapon states" in a speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations of National Defence College in New Delhi on 21 October 2010, a doctrine Menon said reflected India's "strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence.{{cite web |date=October 21, 2010 |title=Speech by NSA Shri Shivshankar Menon at NDC on 'The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs' |url=http://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/798/Speech+by+NSA+Shri+Shivshankar+Menon+at+NDC+on+The+Role+of+Force+in+Strategic+Affairs |access-date=27 July 2015 |publisher=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India}}[http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails211010n.php NSA Shivshankar Menon at NDC (Speech) : india Blooms] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110810110309/http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails211010n.php |date=10 August 2011 }} In April 2013 Shyam Saran, convener of the National Security Advisory Board, affirmed that regardless of the size of a nuclear attack against India, be it a miniaturised version or a "big" missile, India will retaliate massively to inflict unacceptable damage.{{cite news |last=Bagchi |first=Indrani |date=30 April 2013 |title=Even a midget nuke strike will lead to massive retaliation, India warns Pak |newspaper=The Economic Times |url=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/even-a-midget-nuke-strike-will-lead-to-massive-retaliation-india-warns-pak/articleshow/19795988.cms |access-date=30 April 2013}}

In 2016, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar questioned the no-first-use policy, asking why India should "bind" itself when it is a "responsible nuclear power". Later he clarified that this was his personal opinion.{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Why-bind-ourselves-to-%E2%80%98no-first-use-policy%E2%80%99-says-Parrikar-on-India%E2%80%99s-nuke-doctrine/article16442100.ece|title=Why bind ourselves to 'no first use policy', says Parrikar on India's nuke doctrine|date=10 November 2016|work=The Hindu|access-date=17 August 2019|issn=0971-751X}} Defence Minister Rajnath Singh in 2019 said that in the future, India's no-first-use policy might change depending upon the "circumstances".{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-first-use-nuclear-policy-depends-on-circumstances-rajnath-singh/article29109149.ece|title='No First Use' nuclear policy depends on circumstances: Rajnath Singh|date=16 August 2019|work=The Hindu|access-date=17 August 2019|issn=0971-751X}}{{Cite news |agency=Reuters |date=16 August 2019 |title=India Says Committed to 'No First Use' of Nuclear Weapons for Now |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/08/16/world/asia/16reuters-india-nuclear.html |access-date=17 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190817004126/https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/08/16/world/asia/16reuters-india-nuclear.html |archive-date=17 August 2019 |issn=0362-4331}} In a January 2022 statement, however, the Ministry of External Affairs reiterated India's doctrine of "maintaining a credible minimum deterrence based on a No First Use posture and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states".{{Cite news|last=Press Trust of India|date=8 January 2022|title=India hails statement by 5 world powers to stop nuclear weapons|work=Business Standard|url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/india-hails-statement-by-5-world-powers-to-stop-nuclear-weapons-122010701208_1.html#:~:text=Arindam%20Bagchi%2C%20the%20spokesperson%20in,non%2Dnuclear%2Dweapon%20states.|access-date=12 January 2022}}

As of 2025, India's no-first-use policy is qualified.{{Cite book |last=Cunningham |first=Fiona S. |title=Under the Nuclear Shadow: China's Information-Age Weapons in International Security |date=2025 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-26103-4 |location= |doi=10.2307/jj.16040335 |jstor=jj.16040335}}{{Rp|page=310}} It states that it will not engage in first use of nuclear weapons except in the event of "a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons.{{Rp|page=310}}

{{See also|Nuclear triad}}

India's nuclear triad is a military force structure that includes three parts:

• Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs): Land-based nuclear missiles
• Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs): Nuclear-missile-armed submarines
• Strategic bombers: Aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles

The purpose of India's nuclear triad is to increase nuclear deterrence by reducing the chance of an enemy destroying all of India's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack. This ensures that India can still launch a second strike.{{cite web|url=https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/indias-nuclear-triad-still-a-work-in-progress|title=India’s nuclear triad: still a work in progress}}

File:Dassault Mirage 2000.jpg of the Indian Air Force is believed to be assigned the nuclear strike role, operating from Maharajpur Air Force Station.]]

Nuclear-armed fighter-bombers were India's first and only nuclear-capable strike force until 2003 when the country's first land-based nuclear ballistic missiles were fielded.

In addition to their ground-attack role, it is believed that the Dassault Mirage 2000s and SEPECAT Jaguars of the Indian Air Force are able to provide a secondary nuclear-strike role.Hans M. Kristensen, Robert S. Norris (14 July 2012). [http://www.openbriefing.org/issuedesks/nuclearissues/indian-nuclear-forces-2012/ Indian nuclear forces, 2012]. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140820113841/http://www.openbriefing.org/issuedesks/nuclearissues/indian-nuclear-forces-2012/|date=20 August 2014}} The SEPECAT Jaguar was designed to be able to carry and deploy nuclear weapons and the Indian Air Force has identified the jet as being capable of delivering Indian nuclear weapons.[https://web.archive.org/web/20130514044336/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-17/news/34525680_1_jaguar-strike-fighters-stealth-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-rafale-fighters India plans to impart power punch to Jaguar fighters], October 2012. The most likely delivery method would be the use of bombs that are free-falling and unguided.{{cite web |url=http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/innukes.html |title=CDI Nuclear Issues Area – Nuclear Weapons Database: French Nuclear Delivery Systems |publisher=cdi.org |access-date=16 July 2010}}

Three airbases with four squadrons of Mirage 2000H (about 16 aircraft with 16 bombs from 1st and 7th squadrons of the 40th Wing at Maharajpur Air Force Station) and Jaguar IS/IB (about 32 aircraft with 32 bombs from one squadron each at Ambala Air Force Station and Gorakhpur Air Force Station) aircraft are believed to be assigned the nuclear strike role.

File:Agni-V during its first test flight.jpg during its first test flight on 19 April 2012]]

The estimated 68 nuclear warheads{{cite journal |title=Indian nuclear forces, 2017 |first1=Hans M.|last1=Kristensen|first2=Robert S.|last2=Norris|journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|volume=73|issue=4|pages=205–209|doi=10.1080/00963402.2017.1337998|year = 2017|bibcode=2017BuAtS..73d.205K|doi-access=free}} of land-based nuclear weapons of India are under the control of and deployed by the Strategic Forces Command,{{cite web|url=http://pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=155897|title=Successful Test launch of AGNI V|website=Press Information Bureau, Government of India|access-date=18 August 2019}} using a variety of vehicles and launching silos. They currently consist of six different types of ballistic missiles, the Agni-I, the Agni-II, Agni-III, Agni-IV, Agni-V, Agni-P, and the Army's variant of the Prithvi missile family – the Prithvi-I. However, the Prithvi missiles are less useful for delivering nuclear weapons because they have a shorter range and must be deployed very close to the India–Pakistan border. Additional variants of the Agni missile series have recently been inducted including the most recent, the Agni-IV{{cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=14 August 2018 |title=Agni-V set to be inducted by December after one more test |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/agni-v-to-undergo-one-more-pre-induction-test/story-a9OcIgjWaRUyMbBoSOnM5M.html |access-date=18 February 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}} and the Agni-V, which is currently being deployed.{{Cite news|last=Pubby|first=Manu|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/confident-of-doubling-range-of-the-astra-will-be-the-most-lethal-air-to-air-missile-drdo-chief/articleshow/72120351.cms|title=Confident of doubling range of the Astra, will be the most lethal air to air missile: DRDO Chief|date=19 November 2019|work=The Economic Times|access-date=18 February 2020}} Agni-VI is also under development, with an estimated range of 10,000–12,000 km and features such as Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) or Maneuverable reentry vehicles (MARVs).{{cite news |title=Advanced Agni-6 missile with multiple warheads likely by 2017 |url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/advanced-agni-6-missile-with-multiple-warheads-likely-by-2017-113050800034_1.html |access-date=1 October 2013|newspaper=Business Standard India |date=7 May 2013 |last1=Shukla |first1=Ajai }}{{cite news |last=Subramanian |first=T.S. |title=Agni-VI all set to take shape |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/agnivi-all-set-to-take-shape/article4379416.ece?homepage=true |access-date=1 October 2013|newspaper=The Hindu |date=4 February 2013 }}

File:Agni-V missile during rehearsal of Republic Day Parade 2013.jpg ballistic missile at the Republic Day parade.]]

File:B05 SLBM (cropped).jpg SLBM]]

The Indian Navy has developed two sea-based delivery systems for nuclear weapons, completing Indian ambitions for a nuclear triad, which may have been deployed in 2015.{{cite news|last1=Peri|first1=Dinakar|title=India's Nuclear Triad Finally Coming of Age|url=https://thediplomat.com/2014/06/indias-nuclear-triad-finally-coming-of-age/|access-date=10 March 2015|agency=The Diplomat|date=12 June 2014}}{{cite web |date=7 July 2014 |agency=PTI |title=Nuclear triad weapons ready for deployment: DRDO |url=http://www.livemint.com/Politics/lvVxsu1L5GPLvD7Z5j3baJ/Nuclear-triad-weapons-ready-for-deployment-DRDO.html |publisher=Livemint}}

File:Arihant_1.jpg]]

The first is a submarine-launched system consisting of at least four 6,000-tonne (nuclear-powered) ballistic missile submarines of the Arihant class. The first vessel, INS Arihant, was commissioned in August 2016. She is the first nuclear-powered submarine to be built by India.{{cite news|last=Unnithan|first=Sandeep|title=The secret undersea weapon|url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/The+secret+undersea+weapon/1/3659.html|access-date = 11 November 2012|newspaper=India Today|date=28 January 2008}}"Indian nuclear submarine", India Today, August 2007 edition A CIA report claimed that Russia provided technological aid to the naval nuclear propulsion program.{{cite news|title=Russia helped India's nuke programme: CIA|url=http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=18265|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130122191933/http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=18265|url-status=dead|archive-date=22 January 2013|access-date=2 January 2013|agency=Press Trust of India|date=9 January 2003}}{{cite news |last=Naqvi |first=Jawed |date=9 January 2009 |title=Russia helped Indian nuclear programme, says CIA |newspaper=The Dawn |url=http://archives.dawn.com/2003/01/10/top5.htm |access-date=2 January 2013}} The submarines will be armed with up to 12 Sagarika (K-15) missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Sagarika is a submarine-launched ballistic missile with a range of 700 km. This missile has a length of 8.5 meters, weighs seven tonnes and can carry a pay load of up to 50 kg.{{cite news|url=http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/27/stories/2008022757940100.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080229234524/http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/27/stories/2008022757940100.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=29 February 2008 |title=Sagarika missile test-fired successfully |date=27 February 2008 |access-date = 31 August 2010 |work=The Hindu |location=Chennai, India}} Sagarika has already been test-fired from an underwater pontoon, but now DRDO is planning a full-fledged test of the missile from a submarine and for this purpose may use the services of the Russian Navy.{{cite web|url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/06astra.htm |title=Coming from India's defense unit: ASTRA missile |work=Rediff.com |date=31 December 2004 |access-date = 31 August 2010}} India's DRDO is also working on a submarine-launched ballistic missile version of the Agni-III missile, known as the Agni-III SL. According to Indian defence sources, the Agni-III SL will have a range of {{convert|3500|km}}.{{cite web |url=http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200805071441.htm |title=Agni-III test-fired successfully |publisher=Hinduonnet.com |date=7 May 2008 |access-date=31 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606185112/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200805071441.htm |archive-date=6 June 2011 |url-status=usurped }} The new missile will complement the older and less capable Sagarika submarine-launched ballistic missiles. However, the Arihant class ballistic missile submarines will be only capable of carrying a maximum of four Agni-III SL.

The second is a ship-launched system based around the short-range ship-launched Dhanush ballistic missile (a variant of the Prithvi missile). It has a range of around 300 km. In the year 2000, the short-range missile was test-fired from INS Subhadra (a Sukanya class patrol craft). INS Subhadra was modified for the test and the missile was launched from the reinforced helicopter deck. The results were considered partially successful.{{cite web|url=http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab20.asp |title=Nuclear Data – Table of Indian Nuclear Forces, 2002 |publisher=NRDC |access-date = 16 July 2010}} In 2004, the missile was again tested from INS Subhadra and this time the results were reported successful.Arun Vishwakarma (2005). [http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Prithvi.html Prithvi SRBM]. Bharat Rakshak. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090918064715/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Prithvi.html|date=18 September 2009}} In December 2005 the missile was tested again, but this time from the destroyer INS Rajput. The test was a success with the missile hitting the land based target.{{cite web |url=http://www.domain-b.com/aero/20070331_fired.htm |title=Dhanush, naval surface-to-surface missile, test fired successfully |publisher=domain-b.com |date=31 March 2007 |access-date=31 August 2010}}

File:ShaktiBomb.jpg

There is not enough public information to determine if India possesses either multiple-stage thermonuclear weapons or boosted fission weapons.{{cite journal |last=Kristensen |first=Hans M. |last2=Korda |first2=Matt |last3=Johns |first3=Eliana |last4=Knight |first4=Mackenzie |date=2024-09-02 |title=Indian nuclear weapons, 2024 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2024.2388470 |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |volume=80 |issue=5 |pages=326–342 |doi=10.1080/00963402.2024.2388470 |issn=0096-3402 |access-date=2025-05-10}}{{cite journal |last=Ganguly |first=Šumit |date=2011-10-05 |title=India's Pathway to Pokhran II: The Prospects and Sources of New Delhi's Nuclear Weapons Program |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/446967/pdf |journal=International Security |publisher=The MIT Press |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=148–177 |issn=1531-4804 |access-date=2025-05-06}}{{cite web |last=Lakshmi |first=Rama |date=2009-10-05 |title=Key Indian Figures Call for New Nuclear Tests Despite Deal With U.S. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402865.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_9 |access-date=2025-05-06 |website=The Washington Post}}{{cite web |date=1998-06-09 |title=6/5/98 India-Pakistan Tests FAQ |url=https://www.nci.org/i/ip-faq.htm#ans1 |access-date=2025-05-06 |website=www.NCI.org}}{{Cite news |last=Burns |first=John F. |date=1998-05-18 |title=NUCLEAR ANXIETY: THE OVERVIEW; INDIA DETONATED A HYDROGEN BOMB, EXPERTS CONFIRM |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/18/world/nuclear-anxiety-the-overview-india-detonated-a-hydrogen-bomb-experts-confirm.html |access-date=2025-04-15 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} On 11 May 1998, India announced that it had detonated a two-stage thermonuclear bomb with a yield of 45 kilotons in its Operation Shakti tests ("Shakti-I", specifically, in Hindi the word 'Shakti' means power).{{Cite news |last=Burns |first=John F. |date=1998-05-12 |title=India Sets 3 Nuclear Blasts, Defying a Worldwide Ban; Tests Bring a Sharp Outcry |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/12/world/india-sets-3-nuclear-blasts-defying-a-worldwide-ban-tests-bring-a-sharp-outcry.html |access-date=2019-12-24 |issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite web |title=Pokhran – II tests were fully successful; given India capability to build nuclear deterrence: Dr. Kakodkar and Dr. Chidambaram |url=http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=52813 |access-date=2019-07-26 |website=pib.nic.in}} However, due to subsequent statements by involved scientists, the low device yield, and the nature of underground testing, it remains unclear if Shakti-I had any thermonuclear yield. Based on this, it is unclear if India weaponized two-stage thermonuclear bombs for deployment. These questions continue to affect Indian nuclear weapons policy with regard to the possibility of future testing.

In 1998, immediately after the test, Samar Mubarakmand, a Pakistani nuclear physicist, asserted that if Shakti-I had been a thermonuclear test, the device had failed to fire.{{cite news |last=Khan |first=Kamran |date=30 May 1998 |title=Tit-for-Tat: Pakistan tested 6 nuclear devices in response to Indian's tests. |newspaper=The News International |url=http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html |access-date=10 August 2011 |quote=One of these explosions were thermonuclear, we are doing research and can do a fusion test if asked, said by Abdul Qadeer Khan. 'These boosted devices are like a half way stage towards a thermonuclear bomb. They use elements of the thermonuclear process, and are effectively stronger Atom bombs', quoted by Munir Ahmad Khan.}} However, Harold M. Agnew, former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said that India's assertion of having detonated a staged thermonuclear bomb was very much believable.{{Cite news |last=Burns |first=John F. |date=1998-05-18 |title=Nuclear Anxiety: The Overview; India Detonated a Hydrogen Bomb, Experts Confirm |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/18/world/nuclear-anxiety-the-overview-india-detonated-a-hydrogen-bomb-experts-confirm.html |access-date=2019-07-26 |issn=0362-4331}} Rajagopala Chidambaram, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India said that India has the capability to build thermonuclear bombs of any yield at will. The test took place two years after the 1996 opening of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and following the test series India declared a voluntary testing moratorium,{{cite web |last=Lakshmi |first=Rama |date=2009-10-05 |title=Key Indian Figures Call for New Nuclear Tests Despite Deal With U.S. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402865.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_9 |access-date=2025-05-06 |website=The Washington Post}} believed to be maintained to this day.{{Citeneed|date=May 2025}}

Following the 2005 India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement, and the 2009 inauguration of the Obama administration, there was increased concern in the Indian nuclear weapons community that India would be pressured to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, forbidding future underground tests.

At this time, Indian nuclear physicist and weapons program coordinator Krishnamurthy Santhanam claimed that the Shakti-I test saw a fizzle in the secondary thermonuclear stage, failing to achieve fusion ignition. The Washington Post reported:

{{Blockquote|text=Santhanam said that the hydrogen bomb tested in 1998 "completely failed to ignite" and that the shaft, the frame and the winches were found to be intact even after the tests. No crater was formed in the fusion test.

"If the second H-bomb stage of the composite device had worked, the shaft would have been blown to smithereens," he told reporters.{{cite web | last=Lakshmi | first=Rama | title=Key Indian Figures Call for New Nuclear Tests Despite Deal With U.S. | website=The Washington Post | date=2009-10-05 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402865.html | access-date=2025-05-10}}}}

This statement was supported by former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India, P. K. Iyengar who stated that "there is strong reason to believe the thermonuclear device had not fully burnt and, therefore, further testing was called for."{{Cite news |date=2009-09-25 |title=AEC ex-chief backs Santhanam on Pokhran-II |url=http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/AEC-ex-chief-backs-Santhanam-on-Pokhran-II/article16883345.ece |access-date=2018-06-07 |website=The Hindu |language=en-IN}}

In response, physicists Chidambara, Anil Kakodkar, and former president A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, maintained that the test was a success and India can build thermonuclear weapons of various yields up to around {{convert|200|ktonTNT|abbr=on}} based on the Shakti-1 test.{{Cite web |date=24 September 2009 |title=Press Statement by Dr. Anil Kakodkar and Dr. R. Chidambaram on Pokhran-II tests |url=http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=52814 |publisher=Press Information Bureau}}{{Cite journal |date=25 September 2009 |title=Nukes of 200kt yield possible: Architect of Pokhran-II |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Nukes-of-200kt-yield-possible-Architect-of-Pokhran-II/articleshow/5053406.cms |journal=The Times of India}}

In a subsequent interview, Santhanam said "I have maintained and will always maintain that the test was not more than 60 per cent successful in terms of the yield it generated. I have made this assessment based on the report of the instrumentation data that is available and also the programme coordinator." He also criticized former president Kalam's role in the Pokhran-II test series as he was "a missile scientist and he was not present there at that time".{{Cite web |date=August 28, 2009 |title=Why Santhanam said Pokharan II was not a success |url=http://news.rediff.com/interview/2009/aug/28/why-santhanam-said-pokharan-ii-was-not-a-success.htm |access-date=2018-06-07 |website=Rediff}}

In 2009, Iyengar and Bharat Karnad supported India maintaining its option for future nuclear testing by not joining the CTBT, in light of India potentially lacking verified thermonuclear weapons.

A Washington-based Arms Control Association spokesperson criticized Santhanam's comments as being motivated by opposition to nuclear disarmament and the opportunity for future nuclear testing, stating resumed testing would provoke resumed nuclear testing by Pakistan and even CTBT-signatory China. Testing would also end the 2005 nuclear deal with the United States, jeopardizing India's supply of low-enriched uranium for its commercial nuclear reactors.

In 2012, India began construction in Challakere of a facility related to thermonuclear weapons.{{cite web |last=Levy |first=Adrian |date=2015-12-17 |title=India Is Building a Top-Secret Nuclear City to Produce Thermonuclear Weapons, Experts Say |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/16/india_nuclear_city_top_secret_china_pakistan_barc/ |access-date=2025-05-10 |website=Foreign Policy}}

{{As of|2025}}, neither India nor Pakistan have signed the CTBT.{{Citeneed|date=May 2025}}

The yield of India's hydrogen bomb test remains highly debatable among the Indian science community and international scholars.{{cite news |last=PTI |first=Press Trust of India |date=25 September 2009 |title=AEC ex-chief backs Santhanam on Pokhran-II |newspaper=The Hindu, 2009 |url=http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/aec-exchief-backs-santhanam-on-pokhranii/article24861.ece |access-date=18 January 2013}} The question of politicisation and disputes between Indian scientists further complicated the matter.{{cite web |last=Sublette |first=Carey |display-authors=etal |title=What are the real yield of India's Test? |url=http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaRealYields.html |access-date=18 January 2013 |publisher=What Are the Real Yields of India's Test?}}

India claimed that their thermonuclear device was tested at a controlled yield of {{convert|45|ktonTNT|abbr=on}} because of the proximity of the Khetolai village at about {{convert|5|km}}, to ensure that the houses in that village do not suffer significant damage. Another cited reason was that radioactivity released from yields significantly more than 45 kilotons might not have been contained fully.

In an interview in August 2009, the director for the 1998 test site preparations, K. Santhanam claimed that the yield of the thermonuclear explosion was lower than expected and that India should therefore not rush into signing the CTBT. Other Indian scientists involved in the test have disputed K. Santhanam's claim,{{cite news |date=27 August 2009 |title=Former NSA disagrees with scientist, says Pokhran II successful |work=The Times of India |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/New-Article/articleshow/4941081.cms |access-date=20 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090830173039/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/New-Article/articleshow/4941081.cms |archive-date=30 August 2009}} arguing that Santhanam's claims are unscientific. British seismologist Roger Clarke argued that the magnitudes suggested a combined yield of up to {{convert|60|ktTNT|abbr=on}}, consistent with the Indian announced total yield of {{convert|56|ktTNT|abbr=on}}.{{Cite journal |date=2 January 1999 |title=We have an adequate scientific database for designing ... a credible nuclear deterrent |url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1601/16010840.htm |journal=Frontline |access-date=21 July 2023 |archive-date=28 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191028030113/https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1601/16010840.htm |url-status=dead }} U.S. seismologist Jack Evernden has argued that for correct estimation of yields, one should 'account properly for geological and seismological differences between test sites.

India is not a signatory to either the NPT or the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) but did accede to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in October 1963. Journalist, conspiracy theorist,{{cite book |last1=Douglas |first1=Gregory |title=Regicide: The Official Assassination of John F. Kennedy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6GgMAAAACAAJ |publisher=Castle Hill Pub |language=en |date=2002|isbn=9781591482970 }}{{cite web |last1=Weber |first1=Mark |title=Not Quite the Hitler Diaries - Gestapo Chief (Review) |url=http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p40_Douglas.html |website=www.ihr.org |access-date=28 January 2023}} and holocaust denier{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=Gregory |title=Conversations With The Crow |url=https://archive.org/details/conversations-with-the-crow-pdf/page/n55/mode/2up?q=gas+chambers |access-date=28 January 2023 |page=56}} Gregory Douglas claims CIA officer Robert Crowley told him in an interview in 1993 that India's pursuit of the programme disturbed the United States and that the CIA assassinated Prime Minister Shastri and Homi Bhabha in 1966.{{Cite book |last=Douglas |first=Gregory |title=Conversations with the Crow |publisher=Basilisk Press |year=2013 |isbn=9780991175208 |pages=66–67 |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Unrevealed |first=Files |date=2021-09-23 |title=Homi Bhabha's Death: An Unfortunate Accident or the Hands of the Crow |url=https://www.unrevealedfiles.com/homi-bhabhas-death-an-unfortunate-accident-or-the-hands-of-the-crow/ |access-date=2022-04-07 |website=Unrevealed Files |language=en-US}}{{cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/operative-spoke-of-cia-hand-in-1966-crash-report/articleshow/59826686.cms|title=Operative spoke of CIA hand in 1966 crash: Report|access-date=14 June 2024}} India is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and four of its 17 nuclear reactors are subject to IAEA safeguards. India announced its lack of intention to accede to the NPT as late as 1997 by voting against the paragraph of a General Assembly Resolution{{UN document|docid=A-52-PV.67|body=General Assembly|type=Verbatim|session=52|meeting=67|anchor=pg015-bk01|date=9 December 1997|accessdate=22 August 2007 }} which urged all non-signatories of the treaty to accede to it at the earliest possible date.{{UN document|docid=A-RES-52-38|type=Resolution|body=General Assembly|session=52|highlight=rect_85,384_928,444|page=16|accessdate=22 August 2007}} India voted against the UN General Assembly resolution endorsing the CTBT, which was adopted on 10 September 1996. India objected to the lack of provision for universal nuclear disarmament "within a time-bound framework." India also demanded that the treaty ban laboratory simulations. In addition, India opposed the provision in Article XIV of the CTBT that requires India's ratification for the treaty to enter into force, which India argued was a violation of its sovereign right to choose whether it would sign the treaty. In early February 1997, Foreign Minister I. K. Gujral reiterated India's opposition to the treaty, saying that "India favors any step aimed at destroying nuclear weapons, but considers that the treaty in its current form is not comprehensive and bans only certain types of tests."

In August 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved a safeguards agreement with India under which the former will gradually gain access to India's civilian nuclear reactors.{{cite web |date=31 July 2008 |title=IAEA approves India nuclear inspection deal |url=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/board010808.html |access-date=2 October 2008 |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency}} In September 2008, the Nuclear Suppliers Group granted India a waiver to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.{{cite web|url=http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuclear-suppliers-group-grants-india/story.aspx?guid={BA6E4022-DBC8-4B43-B9DE-62608913CB8A}&dist=hppr |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080920132538/http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuclear-suppliers-group-grants-india/story.aspx?guid=%7BBA6E4022-DBC8-4B43-B9DE-62608913CB8A%7D&dist=hppr |title=Nuclear Suppliers Group Grants India Historic Waiver — MarketWatch |publisher=Marketwatch.com |date=6 October 2008 |archive-date=20 September 2008 |access-date=2 October 2008 |url-status=dead }} The implementation of this waiver makes India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the NPT but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.{{cite news|url=http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5geN2RWjoN4oJhPibc7rhkyxMXfzg |title=AFP: India energised by nuclear pacts |agency=Agence France-Presse |access-date=2 October 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110520182512/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5geN2RWjoN4oJhPibc7rhkyxMXfzg |archive-date=20 May 2011 }}R B Grover, "Opening up of international civil nuclear cooperation with India and related development", Progress in Nuclear Energy 101(2017) 161–167.

Since the implementation of the NSG waiver, India has signed nuclear deals with several countries including France,{{cite web |date=25 January 2008 |agency=PTI |title=India, France agree on civil nuclear cooperation |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/25france.htm |access-date=16 July 2010 |work=Rediff.com}} United States,{{cite web |date=9 October 2008 |agency=Reuters |title=Bush signs India-US nuclear deal into law |url=https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/Rj2kxs3VrewKLs201H9ZOI/Bush-signs-IndiaUS-nuclear-deal-into-law.html |access-date=16 July 2010 |publisher=Livemint}} Mongolia, Namibia,{{cite news |author= |date=15 September 2009 |title=India, Mongolia sign civil, nuclear cooperation pact – India |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-Mongolia-sign-civilnuclear-cooperation-pact/articleshow/5011170.cms |url-status=live |access-date=16 July 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025093400/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-15/india/28093243_1_mongolia-sign-cooperation-pact-civil-nuclear |archive-date=25 October 2012}} Kazakhstan{{cite news |author=Dutta |first=Sanjay |date=23 January 2009 |title=Kazakh nuclear, oil deals hang in balance |work=The Times of India |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/Kazakh_oil_deals_hang_in_balance/articleshow/4019306.cms |access-date=16 July 2010}} and Australia{{Cite news |last=Haidar |first=Suhasini |date=2014-09-05 |title=India, Australia seal civil nuclear deal |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Nuclear-deal-will-finally-allow-Australian-uranium-to-India-Tony-Abbott/article60492831.ece |access-date=2022-04-07 |issn=0971-751X}} while the framework for similar deals with Canada and the United Kingdom are also being prepared.{{cite web |author= |date=18 January 2009 |title=UK, Canada eye India's nuclear business |url=http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090080481&ch=1%2F18%2F2009%203%3A57%3A00%20PM |access-date=16 July 2010 |publisher=NDTV.com |archive-date=21 February 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221101724/http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090080481&ch=1%2F18%2F2009%203%3A57%3A00%20PM |url-status=dead }}{{cite web|author=Sitakanta Mishra, THE PAPER|title=India – From 'Nuclear Apartheid' to Nuclear Multi-Alignment|url=http://www.indrastra.com/2016/06/PAPERS-India-From-Nuclear-Apartheid-to-Nuclear-Multi-Alignment-002-06-2016-0017.html|publisher=IndraStra|date=12 June 2016}}

India has several laws in whole or partial measure that deal with the regulation of weapons of mass destruction.{{Cite book |last1=Rajagopalan |first1=Rajeswari Pillai |last2=Biswas |first2=Arka |date=2016 |title=Locating India within the Global Non-Proliferation Architecture: Prospects, Challenges and Opportunities |url=https://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ORF_Monograph_NonProliferation.pdf |publisher=Observer Research Foundation |pages=13, 14, 44 |isbn=978-81-86818-18-3}} They include the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act of 2005. In April 2022 a bill was tabled to amend the 2005 act to include the financing of proliferation.{{Cite web |date=2022-04-06 |title=Explained: What are WMDs, the existing law on which India now wants to amend? |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/everyday-explainers/explained-weapons-of-mass-destruction-law-amendment-7856169/ |access-date=2022-04-06 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}

{{Portal|India}}

; Weapons of mass destruction

• India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement
• Weapons of mass destruction
• Nuclear Command Authority (India)

; Defense-related

• Indian military satellites
• Guided missiles of India
• Indian Armed Forces
• Indian Human Spaceflight Programme

{{reflist}}

• {{citation|last=Kumar|first=A. V.|date=1 May 2010|title=Reforming the NPT to Include India|work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|url=https://thebulletin.org/reforming-npt-include-india|access-date=1 November 2010|archive-date=7 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407061019/http://thebulletin.org/reforming-npt-include-india|url-status=dead}}
• {{citation|last=Nair|first=V. K.|year=2007|title=No More Ambiguity: India's Nuclear Policy|website=afsa.org|url=https://www.afsa.org/fsj/oct02/nair.pdf|access-date=7 June 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927041401/https://www.afsa.org/fsj/oct02/nair.pdf|archive-date=27 September 2007}}
• {{citation|last=Pandit|first=Rajat|date=27 July 2009|title=N-Submarine to Give India Crucial Third Leg of Nuke Triad|newspaper=The Times of India|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/N-submarine-to-give-India-crucial-third-leg-of-nuke-triad/articleshow/4823578.cms|access-date=10 March 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811144548/https://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-07-27/india/28212143_1_nuclear-powered-submarine-ins-arihant-nuclear-submarine|url-status=live|archive-date=11 August 2011}}

• Abraham, Itty (1998). The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb. Science, Secrecy, and the Postcolonial State. London and New York: Zed Books. {{ISBN|9788125016151}}.
• Perkovich, George (1999). India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. {{ISBN|978-0-520-23210-5}}.
• Pahuja, Om Parkash (2001). India: A Nuclear Weapon State. New Delhi: Ocean Books. {{ISBN|978-81-87100-69-0}}.
• Pant, Harsh V., Yogesh Joshi (2018). Indian Nuclear Policy. Oxford University Press. [https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=54468 online review]
• Szalontai, Balázs (2011). [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/npihp-working-paper-1-the-elephant-the-room The Elephant in the Room: The Soviet Union and India’s Nuclear Program, 1967–1989]. Nuclear Proliferation International History Project Working Paper #1. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
• Gurmeet Kanwal (2016). [https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2016/06/indias-nuclear-force-structure-2025?lang=en India’s Nuclear Force Structure 2025]. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Sarkar, Jayita (2022). [https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501764424/ploughshares-and-swords/#bookTabs=1 Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War]. Cornell University Press. [Free Download]

• [http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaOrigin.html Indian nuclear weapons program] at The Nuclear Weapon Archive
• At Nuclear Files:
• :[http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/post-cold-war/india-pakistan/india-pakistan-conflict.htm Nuclear India's nuclear confrontation with Pakistan] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200323104733/http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/post-cold-war/india-pakistan/india-pakistan-conflict.htm |date=23 March 2020 }}
• :[http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/basics/nuclear-stockpiles.htm Nuclear weapon stockpiles] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090418013952/http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/basics/nuclear-stockpiles.htm |date=18 April 2009 }}
• [https://fas.org/nuke/guide/india/doctrine/ocp31.htm CIA on India's nuclear program]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234034/http://frontierindia.net/missile-testing-ranges-of-india/ India's missile testing ranges]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080511001216/http://www.npt-webcast.info/index.php?p=stichworte Video interviews taken at the 2008 NPT PrepCom on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20130423113515/http://alsos.wlu.edu/adv_rst.aspx?keyword=indian*nuclear*weapons*program&creator=&title=&media=all&genre=all&disc=all&level=all&sortby=relevance&results=10&period=15 Annotated bibliography for India's nuclear weapons program] at the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues.
• [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/nuclear-history-documents/ Woodrow Wilson Center's Nuclear Proliferation International History Project], including a collection of primary-source documents on Indian nuclear development.
• [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/index.htm The National Security Archive's "Nuclear Vault"] features a number of compilations of declassified US government documents related to India's nuclear program.

{{Military of India}}

{{Indian missiles}}

{{Portal bar|Nuclear technology}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:India And Weapons Of Mass Destruction}}

Category:Nuclear weapons programme of India

Category:Military of India

Category:History of the Republic of India

Category:Weapons of mass destruction by country