India should revisit her NO FIRST USE policy

[Veeru]

India should declare it that any attack/aggression by chinese will be replied with nukes.

 

[DK Run]

India should declare it that any attack/aggression by chinese will be replied with nukes.

That will be counter productive. India need not stoop to the level of pakistan, bringing out the N card on slightest of any provocation.

Infact it is a sign of desperation and inferiority complex. The need to show oneself as relevant.

There may be other options to counter any agression.

 

[praful]

That will be counter productive. India need not stoop to the level of pakistan, bringing out the N card on slightest of any provocation.

Infact it is a sign of desperation and inferiority complex. The need to show oneself as relevant.

There may be other options to counter any agression.

Can you elaborate all these points ?

 

[pmukherjee]

Nukes are generally to threaten the enemy. Pakistan is using that well. The war is already going on-- a proxy war and nukes are playing a vital in favor of Pakistan. Having nukes now consider as our weakness. This needs to be changed.

No, all Pakistan is saying is that if we attack them and try to crush them and maybe threaten the very existence of Pakistan, they will use nukes first. That is why they do not have a NFU against us as we are conventionally superior to them. While our NFU makes sense against Pakistan, against China it makes no sense at all as China's conventional superiority is such that they can inflict serious defeat on us using their conventional forces unless we threaten to use our nukes at some point of time in a first use scenario.

I thought I was very clear in my first post. NFU is not omnidirectional, it is selective, directed at adversaries conventionally stronger than us. We threaten to use nukes where we are conventionally weak and face defeat.

 

[praful]

No, all Pakistan is saying is that if we attack them and try to crush them and maybe threaten the very existence of Pakistan, they will use nukes first. That is why they do not have a NFU against us as we are conventionally superior to them. While our NFU makes sense against Pakistan, against China it makes no sense at all as China's conventional superiority is such that they can inflict serious defeat on us using their conventional forces unless we threaten to use our nukes at some point of time in a first use scenario.

I thought I was very clear in my first post. NFU is not omnidirectional, it is selective, directed at adversaries conventionally stronger than us. We threaten to use nukes where we are conventionally weak and face defeat.

I do agree with you that it is selective but why we allow anyone to nuke us first ? why we allow them to take out our major cities and financial hub in first place. How our nukes are acting as our safeguards ? Isn't pakistan playing smart ?

After mumbai we do not able to change their vis a vis India and I am sure in near future it won't act a deterrent again against possible terrorist attack. Offense is the best defence.


Can you point out the negatives if we repeal no first use policy.

 

[darkhero]

Just do it if you have guts. You don't even have a missile able to reach our capital, while we can wipe your entire country off the earth.

This is the reason the NO first Use Policy. Better work hard to make your country stronger.

 

[praful]

Just do it if you have guts. You don't even have a missile able to reach our capital, while we can wipe your entire country off the earth.

This is the reason the NO first Use Policy. Better work hard to make your country stronger.

So are you gonna say that in case of a war china won't be using Nukes ? please clarify.

 

[pmukherjee]

I do agree with you that it is selective but why we allow anyone to nuke us first ? why we allow them to take out our major cities and financial hub in first place. How our nukes are acting as our safeguards ? Isn't pakistan playing smart ?

After mumbai we do not able to change their vis a vis India and I am sure in near future it won't act a deterrent again against possible terrorist attack. Offense is the best defence.


Can you point out the negatives if we repeal no first use policy.

Hey my friend, have you played poker? Teen patti? You hold your cards close to your chest and even when you have worthless cards, the expression on your face shows that you are holding a straight flush. Let me tell you, despite the mayhem caused by Pakistani terrorists in Mumbai, war between India and Pakistan was not the best answer. We had more to lose in the event of a war. Our economy from 8.5% would have gone to 3%. And we knew that if we pushed beyond a certain point, Pakistan would go nuclear. In the outcome, Pakistan would be totally erased as a nation but the damage to India? We did not want to be devastated by a nuclear war and take another 30 years to start recovery.

So Pakistan bluffed. We knew the bluff but we did not wish to challenge the bluff with a 'Show' as there were other ways to get the enemy in the game he was playing without risking our nation. Comprende?

 

[praful]

Hey my friend, have you played poker? Teen patti? You hold your cards close to your chest and even when you have worthless cards, the expression on your face shows that you are holding a straight flush. Let me tell you, despite the mayhem caused by Pakistani terrorists in Mumbai, war between India and Pakistan was not the best answer. We had more to lose in the event of a war. Our economy from 8.5% would have gone to 3%. And we knew that if we pushed beyond a certain point, Pakistan would go nuclear. In the outcome, Pakistan would be totally erased as a nation but the damage to India? We did not want to be devastated by a nuclear war and take another 30 years to start recovery.

So Pakistan bluffed. We knew the bluff but we did not wish to challenge the bluff with a 'Show' as there were other ways to get the enemy in the game he was playing without risking our nation. Comprende?

Again you skip the basic question-- what is the advantage of keeping the cards close to the chest ? National security is not a game of teen patti or poker. Everyone already knows your cards that is no first use policy.

Again I am not saying that we should go into the war with pakistan-- but we should use our weapons as a deterrent against any terrorist attack. Pakistan cards are in open don't you think they are openly blackmailing us and reaping the benefits ?

Try to answer my basic question. and they bluffed how do u know this ?

 

[Alchemy]

No need to repeal NFU .. it shows that we are a responsible nation ! India need not tell Pak and China that its going to nuke them if they try to engage us in a full scale war or nuke our country ... Since we are nuclear capable and have a nuclear triad that it is an enough deterrent against conventional "full scale war" ...

India needs to be smart and defeat its enemies diplomatically like say aligning with US , EU and Russia against China and Pakistan which are our only two enemies ! Having strong allies always act as force multipliers how ever strong an individual nation is!

 

[pmukherjee]

Again you skip the basic question-- what is the advantage of keeping the cards close to the chest ? National security is not a game of teen patti or poker. Everyone already knows your cards that is no first use policy.

Again I am not saying that we should go into the war with pakistan-- but we should use our weapons as a deterrent against any terrorist attack. Pakistan cards are in open don't you think they are openly blackmailing us and reaping the benefits ?

Try to answer my basic question. and they bluffed how do u know this ?

How did Pakistan bluff? Pakistan bluffed when it gave the impression that it would risk an all out nuclear war and destruction for Hafiz Sayeed. Why did we not call their bluff? because we knew that a surgical strike is not the ideal way to get one man. If they had been, the US would have got OBL in 1998 in Khost. Also terrorist training camps are nothing. A training camp is like a football field. To meet the players, one has to reach the place when the players are present. a minute after they have left or before they arrive is no good. What do you find? an empty field.

The only effective deterrent to terror is terror. Read Che Guevara. Regards.

 

[praful]

How did Pakistan bluff? Pakistan bluffed when it gave the impression that it would risk an all out nuclear war and destruction for Hafiz Sayeed. Why did we not call their bluff? because we knew that a surgical strike is not the ideal way to get one man. If they had been, the US would have got OBL in 1998 in Khost. Also terrorist training camps are nothing. A training camp is like a football field. To meet the players, one has to reach the place when the players are present. a minute after they have left or before they arrive is no good. What do you find? an empty field.

The only effective deterrent to terror is terror. Read Che Guevara. Regards.

What I can grasp from your post is Our nuclear weapons are dummy as long as we don't go in a war with enemy ?

and Do you want India to play proxy war with pakistan at the cost of ordinary Indians ? I don't think so.

There are other ways to compel pakistan to give up terrorism such as showing a existential threat.

 

[pmukherjee]

What I can grasp from your post is Our nuclear weapons are dummy as long as we don't go in a war with enemy ?

and Do you want India to play proxy war with pakistan at the cost of ordinary Indians ? I don't think so.

There are other ways to compel pakistan to give up terrorism such as showing a existential threat.

Nuclear weapons are not for fighting wars. Nuclear wars can't be won. Every one dies, even those who survive wish that they had died. Nuclear weapons are a means to ensure that no one, however strong he maybe, tries to erase your existence. They are a deterrence, your last resort. They are your Brahmashtra. The only difference is that if you fire your Brahmashtra, so does he, and both are obliterated. So he may not push you to the point where you feel that you have to fire, as he does not wish to be obliterated. Do we feel threatened by Pakistan conventionally? No. So? Does India have aggressive intentions towards Pakistan? No. Do we want their land? NO. So?
Now proxy wars are fought with proxy war not conventional wars. especially if you are fighting an adversary who has nuclear weapons. There is no other way.

 

[praful]

Nuclear weapons are not for fighting wars. Nuclear wars can't be won. Every one dies, even those who survive wish that they had died. Nuclear weapons are a means to ensure that no one, however strong he maybe, tries to erase your existence. They are a deterrence, your last resort. They are your Brahmashtra. The only difference is that if you fire your Brahmashtra, so does he, and both are obliterated. So he may not push you to the point where you feel that you have to fire, as he does not wish to be obliterated. Do we feel threatened by Pakistan conventionally? No. So? Does India have aggressive intentions towards Pakistan? No. Do we want their land? NO. So?
Now proxy wars are fought with proxy war not conventional wars. especially if you are fighting an adversary who has nuclear weapons. There is no other way.

You again skip the basic question-- why do we need to have no first use policy ? There is no advantage of having that -- we can't deter pakistan to use terrorism as a state policy -- so what is the use of this useless policy.

By repealing this we can say that we mean business and nobody should take us for granted . don't you think so ?

 

[pmukherjee]

You again skip the basic question-- why do we need to have no first use policy ? There is no advantage of having that -- we can't deter pakistan to use terrorism as a state policy -- so what is the use of this useless policy.

By repealing this we can say that we mean business and nobody should take us for granted . don't you think so ?

We need to revise our NFU against China as China is an existential threat to India. Against Pakistan? NO. Other means are available.
Nice interacting with you. See you tomorrow. Regards.