gs Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Apart from a nuke strike against India, wonder what kinda provocation would it take to prompt an Indian nuke response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I dont think we need more ROPs in India. Dont we have enough problems already?!?:D I am talking nukes here. Problems will always be there, such is life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Because a no-first strike policy makes sense. xx NEVER makes any sense to take any option off the table and leave your enemy with all of his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 NEVER makes any sense to take any option off the table and leave your enemy with all of his. I would disagree. Look at it from a diplomatic angle. Imagine yourself as a III party that is completely devoid of any bias towards India or Pakistan. Now imagine yourself dealing with the policy makers of the two countries. India says - Yes we are Nuclear power but we shall not do the first attack. The only time we shall use our weapons is when we are attacked in Nuclear fashion. Pakistan says - Yes we are Nuclear power and we are gonna use it as and when we desire. The first comes across as a mature Nuclear power, the latter as a renegade. Indeed this was a tool that India constantly beat up Pakistan around Kargil warfare and isolated Pakistan. USA put enormous pressure on Pakistan but they did not budge from not signing first-strike. They simply couldnt because it would be the death nail for Pakistan. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I would disagree. Look at it from a diplomatic angle. Imagine yourself as a III party that is completely devoid of any bias towards India or Pakistan. Now imagine yourself dealing with the policy makers of the two countries. India says - Yes we are Nuclear power but we shall not do the first attack. The only time we shall use our weapons is when we are attacked in Nuclear fashion. Pakistan says - Yes we are Nuclear power and we are gonna use it as and when we desire. The first comes across as a mature Nuclear power, the latter as a renegade. Indeed this was a tool that India constantly beat up Pakistan around Kargil warfare and isolated Pakistan. USA put enormous pressure on Pakistan but they did not budge from not signing first-strike. They simply couldnt because it would be the death nail for Pakistan. xxx Lurker, we should not depend on others to understand us and come to reasonable conclusion and expect them to put pressure on our enemy. We need to be able to defend ourselves assuming the worst case - other countries won't help us or may even help the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Lurker' date=' we should not depend on others to understand us and come to reasonable conclusion and expect them to put pressure on our enemy. We need to be able to defend ourselves assuming the worst case - other countries won't help us or may even help the enemy.[/quote'] In the world of diplomacy it always helps to carry a big stick and also come across as responsible rather than being a loose canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 The only way to our survival is to annex them' date=' IMO.[/quote'] What a totally immature statement ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 In the world of diplomacy it always helps to carry a big stick and also come across as responsible rather than being a loose canon. There is a difference between being a loose canon and being stupid. US doesn't have a no-first strike policy (we all know that). Not sure who are the nuclear countries which have such a policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 What a totally immature statement ! Yea, be mature and "hope" that we don't get nuked "first" by a maniac nation. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 There is a difference between being a loose canon and being stupid. US doesn't have a no-first strike policy (we all know that). Not sure who are the nuclear countries which have such a policy. And why doesnt USA have the no-first strike Yoda? Would you tell me why that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 And why doesnt USA have the no-first strike Yoda? Would you tell me why that is? Cause they are not stupid like us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Lurker' date=' we should not depend on others to understand us and come to reasonable conclusion and expect them to put pressure on our enemy. We need to be able to defend ourselves assuming the worst case - other countries won't help us or may even help the enemy.[/quote'] Start thinking as a global community, not just 'us vs them' - for the world is moving in that direction. As for having no first strike policy- why the fook would you have first strike policy when your conventional forces are superior anyways ? There are certain idiots here calling it a 'soft' policy, when in reality, all they are doing is blind copy-cat of America. And if you hang around the political circles in the west, you will realize how much of a good thing it is for India's image that India is the only nuclear power with a no first strike policy. Not only is it a more humane policy, it is also the most logical policy, since nukes should NOT be used in a war scenario anyways. Right now, the no-first-strike policy is India's saving grace in the nuclear community despite not signing the NPT or CTBT. And the blind chamchaas of America would do well to travel the western world and realize how much America is disliked in the west, let alone throughout the world, for their arrogant policies. Not the best nation to emulate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Yea' date=' be mature and "hope" that we don't get nuked "first" by a maniac nation. :D[/quote'] And why would you nuke Pakistan first ? And a nuclear strike is not something a head-of-state does at his own mood-swings. There is no way Pakistan would be allowed to strike India with a nuclear missile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Cause they are not stupid like us? Toss the word 'stupid' and put in the world 'sensible/humane' and you are bang on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator_05 Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Not sure who are the nuclear countries which have such a policy. Wikipedia; Countries pledging no-first-use The People's Republic of China, the former Soviet Union, and the countries of Russia, India, and North Korea[1], have pledged not to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict, while the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, France, and Pakistan have not.[citation needed] Furthermore, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France still reserve the right to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack, while the People's Replubic of China "undertakes not to use ... nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapons states or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances".[2] Historically, the reluctance of the NATO allies to pledge to not initiate nuclear attacks during the Cold War resulted from the numerical superiority of Warsaw Pact conventional forces and the belief that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would have been required in defeating a Soviet invasion.[3] [edit] Republic of India India currently has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy. India is to "pursue a doctrine based on 'credible minimum nuclear deterrence'".[4] In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserted that nuclear weapons were solely for deterrence and that India would pursue a policy of "retaliation only".[4] The document also states that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail", and that "The authority to release nuclear weapons for use resides in the person of the Prime Minister of India, or the designated successor(s)".[4] The nuclear doctrine also states that India will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state.[4] 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. However, an Indian foreign ministry official told Defense News in 2000 that a "'no-first-strike' policy does not mean India will not have a first-strike capability". [edit] People's Republic of China Since China's original no-first-use pledge in the 1960s, China has continued to uphold its pledge by possessing a minimal deterrent.[citation needed] Chinese military official Zhu Chenghu, suggested that "if the US threatened to attack China in a conflict over Taiwan, China would have to respond with nuclear weapons".[5] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Cause they are not stupid like us? Ah but that would be a cynical answer and in a way an escapist one too. Seriously now, Why doesnt USA have a no-first strike policy? Hint, the policy has its roots in Cold War era. xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I didnt imply that every single nuke in India would be destroyed. I meant' date=' the capacity to deliver a devastating second strike would be severely reduced. A SLBM capability assures te complete destruction of the aggressor thereby making no first use policy feasible.[/quote'] No, the capacity to deliver a second strike remains largely untouched. As i said,India's nuclear missiles are on mobile launch-pads ( those ginormous trucks) that are randomly deployed throughout the nation. As such, barring a severe breech of Army loyalties such as a top general defecting, no foreign strike can get rid of the mobile launch-pads and as such, the second strike capability remains untouched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Toss the word 'stupid' and put in the world 'sensible/humane' and you are bang on target. Somewhere in our lifetime the word sensible/humane started to come across as soft/weak to the right wingers. No wonder in our times the strongmen admit on open television how they killed dozens and felt like Maharana Pratap....and even the common citizens decide to take law in their own hands and decide to go lynching someone who has only snatched a purse. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Somewhere in our lifetime the word sensible/humane started to come across as soft/weak to the right wingers. Yeah. Its the NRI phenomenon. Bunch of desis who immigrate to the US/UK, deciede that they 'understand' the west & their idea of 'how to do things' is to blindly copy the western nations without an inkling of their cultural history behind it. Ironically, these idjits go around thumping their chest for being a proud desi/nationalists when they live overseas for their own personal gain & pretend to be 'good hindus' despite the fact that most of their thinking is completely opposite to that of hindu philosophy. Rather sad, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I just don't trust any other country to "not allow" this or "allow" that. We need to be ready to take care of things ourselves and that includes keeping all our options open at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts