Scrap "No first use" Policy for nuclear weapons

[ganeshran]

I am no fan of nuclear weapons and dont think India (or for that matter any country other than US) will have enough economic and diplomatic clout to ever be able to use the Nuclear bomb on another nation and get away with it. But frankly our No First Use policy for nuclear weapons is plain stupid. Sun Tzu and many other war strategists have advocated the need for ambiguity and duplicity in defense strategy. The first and foremost goal in any conflict is to not be predictable. When we explicitly rule out the use of one of the most potent weapon in our arsenal, it allows the rival to draw plans around that. The biggest advantage of Nuclear weaponry is its ability to create doubt and fear in the enemy's mind and by clearly stating our terms of use for it, rids us of this crucial advantage. I feel that the government should scrap the No first use policy and instead draw up another policy which has ambiguous wording like "We rule out the use of Nuclear weapons except in extraordinary circumstances". P.S : Please dont make this in an India vs Pakistan flame thread.

[ganeshran]

P.S: Just now saw that Shiv shankar menon in a speech in Oct 2010 indicated that our policy is "no first use against non-nuclear weapon states". But I am not sure if this is an officially stated policy

[The Outsider]

And what's going to be the difference if you use nukes with or without a 'no first use' policy?

[yoda]

A country should be prepared to use all means necessary to defend itself. How the feck do you do that with this policy?

[Stuge]

crazy !!! I would be really worried if we ever have to resort to using nukes. regarding policies they keep on changing .there is no hard and fast rule.

[The Outsider]

regarding policies they keep on changing .there is no hard and fast rule.

Exactly. It's funny to see people getting their arms up about some words. If India's existence is under threat from, say, China in some war of course they are going to use nukes.

[DomainK]

I fail to see what exactly we will gain with that change? I can't see we entering into a war with any other country in near future. Our main security concern is terrorism and nukes are not going to solve that.

[ganeshran]

India is NOT going to use nuclear weapons with or without the policy. We simply dont have the diplomatic clout to justify a nuclear attack on another nation. But an ambiguous policy serves to create doubt in other countries minds, especially our rival nations who try to engage in proxy warfare against us. With the option of a nuclear retaliation not being ruled out, it always plays in the minds of the enemy

[The Outsider]

With the option of a nuclear retaliation not being ruled out' date=' it always plays in the minds of the enemy[/quote'] Not it doesn't - it's a freaking piece of paper in those extreme circumstances.

[Ram]

This is meant more as an assurance to non-nuclear states that we wont go nuclear on their asses in case there’s s confrontation, than a message of peace or submission to equal adversaries/other nuclear states. The no-first-use-policy’s sole intention is to discourage nuclear proliferation. Heck, of all countries, the United States has one as well. So go figure!

[ganeshran]

Not it doesn't - it's a freaking piece of paper in those extreme circumstances.

The seeds of confrontation are not sown in extreme circumstances. More often that not, the most destructive of offensives are planned in peaceful times. Its during these times that we need a deterrent.

[The Outsider]

The seeds of confrontation are not sown in extreme circumstances. More often that not' date=' the most destructive of offensives are planned in peaceful times. Its during these times that we need a deterrent.[/quote'] Let's flip this around - say Pakistan declares a no first use policy. Will it have any impact on India or yours line of thinking with respect to Pakistan?

[ganeshran]

Let's flip this around - say Pakistan declares a no first use policy. Will it have any impact on India or yours line of thinking with respect to Pakistan?

Most probably not, I concede. But Pakistan's absence of a no-first-use policy does play on our policy maker's minds when considering our options.

[straighttalk]

This policy is actually a very sound one. First the policy assures Pakistan that we are not using the N weapons unless you use it. Considering the paranoia and delusion, our lovely neighbors live in, this will act as a deterrent from them being trigger happy. The confusion that you talk about actually could result in another country to press the trigger first. China also has a no first use policy, which makes us stand on equal footing. In any case, in a war with China, we will be in an existential crisiis, and using a N weapon against a country of China's size would be foolhardy. Having said that, in dire times, there isn't any precedent that this rule will always be followed. I am sure if necessary, the rule would be broken. Having this policy against our most obvious enemy actually assuages Pakistan from pressing the N button. Think of it, if India did not have a policy. After Mumbai attack, the Indian media baying for blood. Pakistan is not sure what India will do and decides to fire first to gain the advantage. That's precisely the reason we have this policy.

[ViruRulez]

crazy !!! I would be really worried if we ever have to resort to using nukes. regarding policies they keep on changing .there is no hard and fast rule.

I fail to see what exactly we will gain with that change? I can't see we entering into a war with any other country in near future. Our main security concern is terrorism and nukes are not going to solve that.

This is meant more as an assurance to non-nuclear states that we wont go nuclear on their asses in case there’s s confrontation' date=' than a message of peace or submission to equal adversaries/other nuclear states. The no-first-use-policy’s sole intention is to discourage nuclear proliferation. Heck, of all countries, the United States has one as well. So go figure![/quote'] A few sensible posts in an otherwise dull thread. I would be more worried if we start playing with nukes. Even US wont do that as it would be suicidal in today's world. A nuke wont just destroy that place but would have ever lasting negative impacts in the entire area and more people would die in the long run compared the ones at that time. Japan's cities have not yet recovered and they were not as devastating as nukes of today.

[THX_1138]

op is an idiot.

[ganeshran]

op is an idiot.

Thank you for the enlightening observation. You really have contributed a lot to the discussion

[ganeshran]

A few sensible posts in an otherwise dull thread. I would be more worried if we start playing with nukes. Even US wont do that as it would be suicidal in today's world. A nuke wont just destroy that place but would have ever lasting negative impacts in the entire area and more people would die in the long run compared the ones at that time. Japan's cities have not yet recovered and they were not as devastating as nukes of today.

Viru, did you read the first paragraph of my post? I have categorically stated that I do not advocate the use of nuclear weapons and that I dont think India will ever be able to use a weapon on any other nation. Nuclear weapons exist only for deterrence not for aggression. By clearly stating our terms of use for a deterrent we are ridding ourselves of the advantage. Foreign Policy even between the closest of allies is a guessing game where each step is carefully thought out. With an enemy we would clarity of our decision making process is a clear disadvantage. An e.g analogy: Israel has never owned up to possessing a nuclear weapon but its almost an open secret that they have it. So if a nation were ever to launch a military campaign against Israel, how would they go about strategising their campaign, do they factor in a nuclear weapon or not? Do they consider the possible nuclear retaliation. If yes, then how would it be delivered? Where would they prefer to attack? In a confrontation every variable in the planning stage is an extra overhead for the enemy, every constant makes it easier for them.

[ViruRulez]

Viru' date=' did you read the first paragraph of my post?[b'] I have categorically stated that I do not advocate the use of nuclear weapons and that I dont think India will ever be able to use a weapon on any other nation. Nuclear weapons exist only for deterrence not for aggression. By clearly stating our terms of use for a deterrent we are ridding ourselves of the advantage. Foreign Policy even between the closest of allies is a guessing game where each step is carefully thought out. With an enemy we would clarity of our decision making process is a clear disadvantage. An e.g analogy: Israel has never owned up to possessing a nuclear weapon but its almost an open secret that they have it. So if a nation were ever to launch a military campaign against Israel, how would they go about strategising their campaign, do they factor in a nuclear weapon or not? Do they consider the possible nuclear retaliation. If yes, then how would it be delivered? Where would they prefer to attack? In a confrontation every variable in the planning stage is an extra overhead for the enemy, every constant makes it easier for them.

That policy can be changed during war and there is no big issue on that. By stating a no nuke first policy to other nations we are implying that we are a peaceful nation who does not believe in war or nuclear proliferation. At the same time, we are also implying that if anybody attacks us we would not think twice about using nukes. In your example too, if the country's leader has some brain then they would never nuke first. Do you think that the world will leave and allow any country to nuke another country. The country who bombards the first nuke would probably nuked by the rest of the world for overall world safety. No nuke first is the safest and one of the most clever policy in terms of nuke usage. It makes our intentions clear and holds us on high moral grounds too. So, the chances of a nuclear war from the opposing nation would also be very likely as they know the world would nuke out their country and not only India if they start behaving unethically even after India's clear cut policy. NB: In an emergency and if we are 100% sure that the enemy is going to attack then we can always change our policy. We did that in 1971 too when we became Pakis are going to attack us and we captured nearly half of their country at that time.

[f.b.m]

op is an idiot.

He is a bit hit and miss I reckon. Hits when it comes to the flat and easy world of religion. Misses in the green grass of politics and policy making. A Thilan Samaraweera of the forum if you like.