Scrap "No first use" Policy for nuclear weapons

[ganeshran]

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.

Thanks for the appraisal. now I'm sure you have many other forummers you need to review, given the fact that you obviously are the expert in all things under the sun. kthanxbye

[Lurker]

op is an idiot.

+1 PS: How are you dude? Heard you have been dedicating your morning rituals to OBL?

[ganeshran]

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.

I think the bolded part is the only advantage of the No First Use Policy. It conveys to the rest of the world that our arsenal is not for unilaterally attacking another country. IMO this is also conveyed by self imposed moratorium on nuclear testing. But in our active confrontations - with Pakistan and China this policy ends up hurting us as it lends predictability to our response. Nuclear weapons are anyway not an option for both India and Pakistan, its only their fear which maintains an uneasy peace in the subcontinent.

[Lurker]

I think the bolded part is the only advantage of the No First Use Policy. It conveys to the rest of the world that our arsenal is not for unilaterally attacking another country. IMO this is also conveyed by self imposed moratorium on nuclear testing. But in our active confrontations - with Pakistan and China this policy ends up hurting us as it lends predictability to our response. Nuclear weapons are anyway not an option for both India and Pakistan, its only their fear which maintains an uneasy peace in the subcontinent.

You do realize India and China have same policy? Or maybe you do not.

[ganeshran]

You do realize India and China have same policy? Or maybe you do not.

I do. But you are ignoring the fact that China has no incentive in using Nuclear weapons against us. Their army is far stronger than India, and would probably easily defeat India in a conventional war. It is like with India and Pakistan. Pakistan doesn't have a no first use policy, so whenever there is a risk of war, the nuclear question always hovers in the mind of our policy makers. Thats why we didnt go to war during the Parliament attack. Nuclear weapons are meant to equalise these inequalities in conventional army strengths. If they are there to be a deterrent to war, then the enemy must realize we are prepared to use them without following a set protocol like No First Use.

[Lurker]

I do. But you are ignoring the fact that China has no incentive in using Nuclear weapons against us. Their army is far stronger than India' date= and would probably easily defeat India in a conventional war.

Gee. Thanks for the vote of confidence dude. Only Indians can knock themselves, and their countrymen, down as a nation without any balls, a country that can be defeated by China easily etc etc. Even a Chinese won't be as dismissive of Indian military might.

[moumotta]

Neither China nor India can afford a direct military confrontation with each other. Pakistan will only ever act thorugh proxies and never think of a direct confrontation. Who do we need a first use policy against. Not against Nepal, bangla and Srilankans. Even Pakistan's first use policy is a pretend stance. They will never dare it if India ever had the guts to launch a limited surgical strike like the Americans did. They could only use it as a last resort in case of a full on confrontation. I don't see any difference between a First Use or a Retaliation strike. The latter just gives us some diplomatic browny points.

[vaibhav_delhi]

Gee. Thanks for the vote of confidence dude. Only Indians can knock themselves, and their countrymen, down as a nation without any balls, a country that can be defeated by China easily etc etc. Even a Chinese won't be as dismissive of Indian military might.

well said.

[yoda]

North Korea also has a no first use policy. Hope that makes our policy even more legit. :hahaha: It is a dumb policy, no two ways about it. If you are going to violate it anyways, why have it even? BTW, US clearly states that they will use it for defense even against a non-nuclear attack, so not the same. Ofc, they have rewritten the policy a gazillion times with each administration with a lot of caveats, but we are one of only 3 countries (2 of which are rogue and will not follow any rules) to have this stupid policy.

[Alchemist]

When it comes to Pakistan, Policy or not, it does not matter. Both nations equally know that the country firing the nuke will get demolished too. I think the distances are too close to each other to avoid any nuclear fallout. The above view is from a sane and mentally stand point of view. As for Pakistans view on this, I don't know. Any thhing is possible with them.

[yoda]

Neither China nor India can afford a direct military confrontation with each other.

China can't afford to confront us? Are you assuming that we will get help from others in that event or are you basing it on our military strength alone?

[EnterTheVoid]

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

Yea, lets drop a nuclear bomb on Pakistan and in the process, kill several thousands of our own to collateral damage.

[yoda]

Yea' date=' lets drop a nuclear bomb on Pakistan and in the process, kill several thousands of our own to collateral damage.[/quote'] What part of "defend" did you miss? Take this hypothetical. Let's say enemy X - could be China/Pakistan, is overpowering you in conventional warfare and you are on the verge of losing it, now would you just bend over and continue to get destroyed, or use whatever weapons are at your disposal? And if you consider the nuclear weapons as such an unusable option, why did you even bother to acquire it? And if you think you will wait for a nuke to fall before you are willing to act, I guess then you are willing to allow a good part of your country to be destroyed before you will use your own stock pile. Again in that case, why did you even bother to acquire it? If has been acquired only as a deterrent, to prevent the enemy from trying to use it for fear of retaliation, what if the enemy has no such fear? Are you leaving yourself at the mercy/psyche of your enemy?

[ganeshran]

Gee. Thanks for the vote of confidence dude. Only Indians can knock themselves, and their countrymen, down as a nation without any balls, a country that can be defeated by China easily etc etc. Even a Chinese won't be as dismissive of Indian military might.

What do you want me to say - "Inshallah, we will crush China easily, and then join with other countries and defeat the US too"? :dontknow: China is numerically stronger and also has better infrastructure in the border areas. Unless the conflict is short and limited to such a small geographical area that the size advantage is negated, China will always defeat us at conventional war.

[moumotta]

China can't afford to confront us? Are you assuming that we will get help from others in that event or are you basing it on our military strength alone?

I am assuming that they understand the economic cost of a confrontation at this stage of their development.

[Prakat]

Every day of full-fledged military engagement is equal to stepping back a year in progress for a growing economy.

[DomainK]

I am assuming that they understand the economic cost of a confrontation at this stage of their development.

China and India are both at a very crucial stage in our economic growths. I am sure that both countries would avoid a war at any cost at the moment. A war is no more as easy as it used to be the days gone by. A war between two decent sized countries can make a huge economic difference to the rest of the world. We are in a time when countries need each other to grow. Even the chances of India and Pakistan entering into a war is very low.

[Show_stopper]

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

I second this opinion. Possessing n-capability is in itself a deterrent. It does not matter if you rule out pre-emptive strikes. Countries as a rule are extremely reluctant to cross the nuclear threshold when the target is capable of retaliation. Frankly that is the ONLY utility of nuclear weapons as far as any civilized nation is concerned. Its not like people will use n-bombs in regular wars. If that was the case NATO would have nuked Iraq and Afghanistan long back and ended the Taliban for good.

[youngindia]

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.

nuclear weapons are for deterrence.Not use.only lunatics will think of using them. get that out of your mind first. i really see no rationale and no sense in using nuclear weapons first. the two countiies that confronts us are pakistan and china. both can be handled in conventional wars at the current situation. your uninformed contention about chinese win in a conventional war is not shared by any military professional i have met. first of all the war in the himalayas is localised over hostile mountainous terrain. it will be limited to mountain divisions ,mortars and mobility.its like only section of the armies will be involved in a border war. mountain warfare at those altitudes requires acclimitisation. it is impossible for both countries to send huge armies across the himalayas to the assamese plains or tibetan plateau.it will never be a total war like that fought between russia and germany. the unanimous opinion among them is it will be a lot of blood and stalemate both armies do not have enough high end technology (ike the devleoped countries) to have a significant advantage over the other.

[Stuge]

Well this thread needs a picture of this :)