India believed to have 'slightly expanded' nuclear arsenal in 2024: Report

Nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states, including India and Pakistan, continued intensive nuclear modernisation programmes in 2024, upgrading existing weapons and adding newer versions, according to a report by a global think-tank.
India is believed to have once again "slightly expanded" its nuclear arsenal in 2024 and continued to develop new types of nuclear delivery systems, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said in a statement.
Pakistan also continued to develop new delivery systems and "accumulate fissile material" in 2024, suggesting that its nuclear arsenal might expand over the coming decade, it said.
The think-tank on Monday launched its annual assessment of the state of armaments, disarmament and international security in SIPRI Yearbook 2025.
The statement on the release of its yearbook also makes a reference to the recent military conflict between India and Pakistan.
The four-day military confrontation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours in May brought the two countries to the brink of full-scale war.
The SIPRI Yearbook provided a country-wise assessment of the state of armaments, disarmament and international security.
"Nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states -- the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Israel --continued intensive nuclear modernisation programmes in 2024, upgrading existing weapons and adding newer versions," the statement said.
Of the total global inventory of an estimated 12,241 warheads in January 2025, about 9,614 were in "military stockpiles for potential use", it claimed.
"India is believed to have once again slightly expanded its nuclear arsenal in 2024 and continued to develop new types of nuclear delivery system," it said.
"India's new 'canisterised' missiles, which can be transported with mated warheads, may be capable of carrying nuclear warheads during peacetime, and possibly even multiple warheads on each missile, once they become operational," the think-tank claimed.
In early 2025 tensions between India and Pakistan briefly spilled over into armed conflict, it said.
The combination of strikes and third-party disinformation "risked turning a conventional conflict into a nuclear crisis," Matt Korda, Associate Senior Researcher with SIPRI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme and Associate Director for the Nuclear Information Project at FAS (Federation of American Scientists), was quoted as saying in the statement.
"This should act as a stark warning for states seeking to increase their reliance on nuclear weapons," he said.
The think-tank further said since the end of the Cold War, the gradual dismantlement of retired warheads by Russia and the USA has normally outstripped the deployment of new warheads, resulting in an overall year-on-year decrease in the global inventory of nuclear weapons.
"This trend is likely to be reversed in the coming years, as the pace of dismantlement is slowing, while the deployment of new nuclear weapons is accelerating," it cautioned.
Key findings of SIPRI Yearbook 2025 are that a "dangerous new nuclear arms race" is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are "severely weakened," it claimed.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Print

3 hours ago

• The Print

Modi's ‘no' to Trump isn't about peace or Pakistan. It's narrative warfare

This isn't just about India-Pakistan tensions either. It's about who gets to control the story in a multipolar world. For decades, the US has positioned itself as the global referee, doling out solutions to conflicts it often had a hand in stoking. Modi's blunt rejection of mediation isn't about snubbing peace talks or flexing muscle against Pakistan. It's about narrative warfare. Donald Trump often declares himself a peacemaker or unifier. By refusing to let Washington mediate disputes like Kashmir, Modi is asserting India as a rulemaker. This isn't isolationism—it's strategic autonomy, a declaration that India's future is written in New Delhi, not on Pennsylvania Avenue. Setting the record straight, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed critical global speculations in a telephonic conversation with American President Donald Trump . PM Modi firmly clarified that at no point was there any discussion, at any level, on a trade deal between India and the United States, or any proposal for mediation by the US during the India-Pakistan conflict. He also declined Trump's invitation to visit the US, citing prior engagements. The message was clear: India doesn't need a Western stamp of approval to handle its disputes or define its interests. Trump's team, eager to spin a legacy of peace deals, sees South Asia as a stage for grandstanding. But India's refusal to play along signals a shift: emerging powers are no longer content to be props in Western narratives. Nations are eyeing India's move, wondering if they, too, can rewrite their roles. Modi's no flips the dynamic Ever since India's Independence, the US has treated the subcontinent like a Cold War chessboard. It armed Pakistan to counter Soviet influence, while non-aligned India was cast as the difficult child. Today, America's mediation offers—whether on Kashmir or trade—come with strings. Accepting them means ceding narrative control, letting Washington frame India as a problem that needs fixing. Modi's 'no' flips this dynamic. The US has long dangled mediation, knowing it's a low-risk way to look statesmanlike while keeping India and Pakistan in check. But India sees through the charade. In 2019, when the government of India revoked Jammu & Kashmir's special status, it didn't ask Washington's permission—it acted, and then managed the fallout. The move sparked global chatter, but New Delhi weathered it without leaning on Western goodwill. Modi's latest rebuttal builds on that: Why let a third party referee a game India can play on its own terms? Also read: Turkey's 'Asia Anew' isn't just a slogan—it's a growing strategic surprise for India India won't be arm-twisted The US wants India to open its markets wider, but Modi's stance ties trade to sovereignty. By linking trade talks to non-interference, he's signalling that India won't be arm-twisted into deals that prioritise American interests over its own. India's economy, now the world's fifth-largest, grew 8.2 per cent in 2023-24, according to the World Bank. It's a heavyweight that can afford to set its own rules, not beg for scraps at the global table. This isn't about burning bridges. India still engages the West. Take a look, for instance, at the Quad partnership with the US, Japan, and Australia to counter China. But engagement doesn't mean subservience. The country's 'Make in India' push and tech advancements—like the 5G rollout led by homegrown firms—show that it can compete without playing by someone else's script. Trump's team thrives on spectacle, casting him as the ultimate dealmaker. A 'peace deal' in 'South Asia' would be a feather in his cap, especially with US elections looming. But Modi knows that letting America claim credit risks framing India as a junior partner. Instead, he's betting on India's own story: a rising power that negotiates from strength, not gratitude. This resonates globally—think of African nations sidestepping Western aid conditions, or countries from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) balancing China and the US without bowing to either. Modi's 'no' isn't just a rejection—it's a manifesto. India isn't fighting Pakistan to prove its strength; it's refusing to be America's prop. In a world where narratives shape power, India is asserting its right to write its own. This isn't diplomacy as usual; it's a declaration that the old script—where Washington called the shots—is obsolete. India's gamble could inspire a rewrite of the world's story, one where emerging powers don't just play the game but set the rules. And that's a plot twist worth watching. Brabim Karki is a Nepal-based businessman, author, and columnist who writes on international affairs. He is the chairman of Mero Tribune media. His X handle is @brabim7. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)

Indian Express

4 hours ago

• Indian Express

What is the B-2 Spirit, the US stealth bomber used in strikes on Iran?

In a major military escalation, the United States deployed its B-2 Spirit stealth bombers on Saturday to carry out precision airstrikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. The mission, announced by President Donald Trump, targeted three sites, including the fortified Fordow enrichment facility, which he described as the 'crown jewel' of Iran's nuclear programme. 'Fordow is gone,' Trump said, calling the operation a 'very successful attack.' The strikes, involving some of the most advanced aircraft in the US arsenal, offer a rare glimpse into the capabilities of the B-2 Spirit, an aircraft designed to slip past air defences, strike fortified bunkers, and return undetected. Here is what to know about the B-2 bomber and why it was used in the Iran mission: The B-2 Spirit is one of the most sophisticated and secretive aircraft ever built. Developed by Northrop Grumman during the Cold War, the bomber was designed for deep-penetration missions in contested airspace. Only 21 were produced after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with each unit costing an estimated $2.1 billion, according to news agency Reuters. The aircraft's bat-like design and radar-absorbing materials make it nearly invisible to radar, giving it a radar cross-section said to be comparable to that of a small bird. Operated by a two-pilot crew, the B-2 uses extensive automation to reduce human workload and risk. The B-2's combination of stealth, range, and payload makes it uniquely suited to hit heavily fortified, high-value targets — especially those buried deep underground. In Saturday's mission, the bombers were reportedly armed with the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) bunker-buster bomb designed specifically to destroy hardened underground facilities like Fordow. Due to the bomb's size and weight, each B-2 can carry only one or two per mission. Six MOPs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, a facility that is built beneath a mountain and protected by layers of anti-aircraft defences. The use of the B-2, the only aircraft in the US fleet configured to carry the MOP, was considered essential for such an operation. The B-2 has a range of over 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km) without refuelling, enabling it to conduct long-range missions from the continental United States. The aircraft has operated globally, with past missions spanning from Missouri to Afghanistan, Libya, and now, Iran. Its total payload exceeds 40,000 pounds (18,144 kg) and includes both conventional and nuclear weapons. It can deliver up to 16 B83 nuclear bombs as part of the US nuclear triad. In addition to the MOP, the B-2 can carry a range of conventional weapons. These include:

New Indian Express

8 hours ago

• New Indian Express

Death of mediation: Statesmen as showmen

Mediation is the message. Whenever a conflict arises, politicians seeking the tag of statesmen rush in and claim credit. When Donald Trump boomed into the headlines in June 2025 claiming to have brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, the only thing louder than his announcement was the silence from New Delhi—until it was shattered by a phone call. Narendra Modi, with the practised precision of a man who has heard it all before, reportedly spent 35 minutes dismantling Trump's fantasy. The prime minister made it clear that the ceasefire was a result of direct military-to-military understanding rooted in the 1972 Simla Agreement. 'India has never accepted third-party mediation, nor will it ever,' Modi declared, according to sources familiar with the call. His disdain was unmistakable. This sharp exchange exposes a deeper crisis—that in a world fractured by wars like Iran-Israel, Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine and India-Pakistan, there is total absence of credible, universally-accepted mediators. This has paralysed diplomacy, leaving violence unchecked. Going back to the 1970s, Henry Kissinger's secret diplomacy with Mao Zedong during the Cold War to check the Soviet Union exemplified the kind of strategic mediation absent in today's conflicts. Unlike today's self-promoting dealmakers, Kissinger operated with Cold War gravitas, using realpolitik to reshape global alliance. It's a stark contrast to the opportunistic mediation attempts plaguing 2025's fractured world order. If Trump fancied himself a reincarnation of Kissinger, Modi responded like a man unwilling to share the stage with a meddler playing diplomat in his own campaign circus. But behind this diplomatic snub lies a more troubling truth: we live in an age without credible mediators. The global landscape of June 2025 is a tinderbox of conflicts, each defying resolution due to the lack of a trusted peacemaker. The era of diplomatic giants like Franklin Roosevelt, who shaped post-World War II peace, or Jimmy Carter, who brokered the 1978 Camp David Accords, is a distant memory. The world in mid-2025 resembles a geopolitical powder-keg, with Israel and Iran exchanging missiles, Ukraine and Russia locked in a trench war stretching over a decade, Hamas and Israel in a perpetual loop of bloodshed, and India-Pakistan tensions now simmering dangerously post-Sindoor. What's missing isn't just resolution. It's trust. Gone are the days of Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy or handshakes of détente like that between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin.