Myth of Indian ‘nuclear no first use’

[DESERT FIGHTER]

The Indian policymakers finally, on 11 May 1998, lifted the veil from the true face of the Buddha which had apparently smiled “peacefully” on 18 may 1974 in Pokhran. Pakistan was quick to display its tit for tat reaction a few days later. Although the 1998 testing did give India the status of de facto nuclear weapon status, yet it also neutralized Indian conventional edge over Pakistan as prospects of any future conflict between these South Asian rivals could not be conceived without bringing the nuclear equation into the calculus. Subsequently, Indians hurriedly came up with a draft nuclear doctrine which provides fuzzy guidelines for the employment of nuclear weapons. Pakistan, to add further credibility to its nuclear deterrent, decided to keep its nuclear doctrine a classified matter.
While Pakistan has never kept it hidden that its nuclear deterrent is premised on the core belief of “first use but last resort”, this term has usually been seen by the western academics as an offensive nuclear posture. Other than Pakistan, only Israel shares same kind of doctrinal principle labelling it as a “Samson Option”, but it has never been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny in the western media or academics, as has been seen in the case of Pakistan. Ironically, while Pakistan is singled out for adopting a posture of “first use but last resort” which actually means that it could consider the employment of nuclear weapons once all other options have been exhausted, India is given a salutary status to its actually meaningless clause of “no first use.” Interestingly, not only in the west but some of the Pakistani scholars amongst the strategic community have fallen victim to this deceptive phrase in the Indian nuclear doctrine.
The Indian so-called “no first use” clause has three conditions attached to it which actually makes it redundant. The first condition says that, “any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat” which doesn’t rule out a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Second, in the clause 2.5 saying, “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers,” the term alliance can be translated into various terms. Like should there be a formal defence pact or a treaty between a nuclear weapon states or mere maintaining diplomatic, economic and cultural ties could also be considered as an alliance. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Iran can be considered as allies of Pakistan with regards to certain issues. Likewise, Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea also forms and alliance with the US and thus qualifies for a nuclear first strike. Finally, clause 2.3a, revised in 2003 states that, “however, in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.” This implies that if some UN contingent including few Indian troops is attacked with either a chemical or a biological agent in some of the remotest part of the world, India could retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Under such conditions, actually believing in the myth of Indian no first nuclear posture and doctrine is a self-alluded fallacy which practically makes no sense at all. Rather, it is primarily meant to maintain ambiguity with regards to first strike option if a situation is deemed necessary.

The writer SHAMS-UZ-ZAMAN is an M.Phil scholar at NDU, Islamabad and can be reached at: smszmn72@yahoo.com.


Myth of Indian ‘nuclear no first use’

 

[third eye]

This implies that if some UN contingent including few Indian troops is attacked with either a chemical or a biological agent in some of the remotest part of the world, India could retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Under such conditions, actually believing in the myth of Indian no first nuclear posture and doctrine is a self-alluded fallacy which practically makes no sense at all. Rather, it is primarily meant to maintain ambiguity with regards to first strike option if a situation is deemed necessary.

Wish the author would have mentioned his age too.

Only a child or an imbecile would come to such ' implications'.

You have to be nuts to come to such conclusions. As regards the bold part - isnt that what nations are supposed to do ? Keep their war plans secret & ambiguous ? What does he expect India to do - draw a flow chart to explain its plans ?

 

[GR!FF!N]

Other than Pakistan, only Israel shares same kind of doctrinal principle labelling it as a “Samson Option”, but it has never been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny in the western media or academics, as has been seen in the case of Pakistan.

thats because Israel doesn't possess Nuclear weapons,atleast not openly accepted it..though it is said that they does,so do South Africa.but the status is unclear.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

if some UN contingent including few Indian troops

Wish the author would have mentioned his age too.

Only a child or an imbecile would come to such ' implications'.

You have to be nuts to come to such conclusions. As regards the bold part - isnt that what nations are supposed to do ? Keep their war plans secret & ambiguous ? What does he expect India to do - draw a flow chart to explain its plans ?

Aha; you noticed that too, lol ! That implication is well.........never mind.
He implies that "if some UN contingent including few Indian troops" e.g. in Congo is attacked by Chemical or Biological weapons, India will unleash its Nukes. Is the guy NUTS or what ?
Its more interesting to 'speculate' what the 72 in his e-mail handle is inspired by?
Can't be his age, is it his IQ ?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

thats because Israel doesn't possess Nuclear weapons,atleast not openly accepted it..though it is said that they does,so do South Africa.but the status is unclear.

South Africa is out. The Afrikaners signed a NPT before they handed over power to the majority and the democratically elected government had to destroy their arsenal in accordance with that treaty. I truly wonder what advantage if any a nuclear arsenal serves to India and Pakistan. Okay, there haven't been any conventional large scale wars between them since they acquired nukes but then again, they both know that they cant use their nukes. Even the USA which literally caught a hiding in Vietnam couldn't use its nukes in that war. No first use or first use or no use at all..these are all meaningless concepts which silly academics try to make sense of. Unless a country with a nuke arsenal is taken over by a madcap extremist movement (like some of the Pakistani members here who regularly threaten India and Iran with nukes ) then the chances are slim to nil that they will ever use their nukes 

Wish the author would have mentioned his age too.

Only a child or an imbecile would come to such ' implications'.

You have to be nuts to come to such conclusions. As regards the bold part - isnt that what nations are supposed to do ? Keep their war plans secret & ambiguous ? What does he expect India to do - draw a flow chart to explain its plans ?

No need to insult the author of this article. He is purely expressing his views. In all fairness to Mr Zaman, he has written quite a few journals and is an internationally respected academic

 

[SQ8]

Well, there is no actual myth involved. The no-first use is based on an assumption that India has not been attacked by non-conventional weapons. However, if the attack was chemical or biological or a dirty bomb.. then the first-use clause is violated already. That is like trying to demystify someone who says they wont fire a gun first.. however, if they are shot(even if they dont know who shot them)..they are in their right to shoot at anyone they suspect; as in their mind.. the first use has already occurred.

The author really did not need to put 500 words on something that could be said in 50.

 

[duhastmish]

This is not that complex India always maintain no first use policy unless opposition use non conventional weapon or intend to use them. But we have to remember this as well if u try and push a tiger in corner he will attack by all means. India is no different if there is a need arising for first use....policy can be changed. So be careful before making those nuke comments.

Although we all must agree that nuke war=end of days.

 

[Broccoli]

India does not have enough recce (satellites, drones, humint, etc) to know for sure where Pakistani nuclear weapons are stored, so it would be very risky to try "knock out" Pakistani nuclear forces with their limited capabilities. Same goes of course to Pakistan.

 

[StormShadow]

India does not have enough recce (satellites, drones, humint, etc) to know for sure where Pakistani nuclear weapons are stored, so it would be very risky to try "knock out" Pakistani nuclear forces with their limited capabilities. Same goes of course to Pakistan.

Satellites didnot even help USA - The sole superpower, to atleast pickup some kind of activity in 1998 when India conducted nuclear tests...and humint literally proved to be a distater. Sure they are important, but they are not the only ones important.

If at all anybody decides to "knock out" pak's nukes, nobody with an iota of grey matter would do it directly. Some kind of a sabotage op/false flag op would be carried out. And a scene would be created as if terrorists are taking over pak's nuke arsenal. Media would be going crazy world wide about "reports" of possible theft of nuke warhead. And only then, joint spec ops would be carried by US/NATO with the "help of pak army" to secure the nukes. It is not as easy as shown in a hollywood film where a couple of SEAL dudes storm a place, take out the bad guys and secure the nukes.

 

[SQ8]

To all those still struggling with what the author is trying to repackage.. go watch the Sum of All fears.
It is the exacting definition of what no-first use is..and a very nice example of what similar debates might go inside the Indian decision matrix in case something like that happens.

 

[indushek]

To all those still struggling with what the author is trying to repackage.. go watch the Sum of All fears.
It is the exacting definition of what no-first use is..and a very nice example of what similar debates might go inside the Indian decision matrix in case something like that happens.

Love that movie, particularly the scene where they fire a volley of missiles on the carrier. Wow that was frighteningly amazing.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

thats because Israel doesn't possess Nuclear weapons,atleast not openly accepted it..though it is said that they does,so do South Africa.but the status is unclear.

Israel's status is more then clear dude, it had tested it in south Atlantic ocean near South Africa in 2010. Jericho missile was used.

 

[Dillinger]

@Oscar Although the Indian nuclear posture (or at least the particulars of it) is bound to change even within the scope of the NFU in this decade and the next. With the introduction of canisterized missiles where the warhead and the physics package are already mated with the delivery vehicle by the end of this decade and a credible sea based deterrent through the Arihant follow on submarines in the next our ability to strike with little or no warning will get a boost in the arm, I believe that canisterization is the direction in which Pakistan will move too, yes? Got any thoughts on that?

 

[GR!FF!N]

Israel's status is more then clear dude, it had tested it in south Atlantic ocean near South Africa in 2010. Jericho missile was used.

It tested its missiles near Sri Lanka too..but nowhere it is mentioned that it tested nuclear weapons.and nobody test nuclear weapons in open today.everybody use underground testing.so,if you think they tested it on a missile,you're wrong.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

The Indian policymakers finally, on 11 May 1998, lifted the veil from the true face of the Buddha which had apparently smiled “peacefully” on 18 may 1974 in Pokhran. Pakistan was quick to display its tit for tat reaction a few days later. Although the 1998 testing did give India the status of de facto nuclear weapon status, yet it also neutralized Indian conventional edge over Pakistan as prospects of any future conflict between these South Asian rivals could not be conceived without bringing the nuclear equation into the calculus. Subsequently, Indians hurriedly came up with a draft nuclear doctrine which provides fuzzy guidelines for the employment of nuclear weapons. Pakistan, to add further credibility to its nuclear deterrent, decided to keep its nuclear doctrine a classified matter.
While Pakistan has never kept it hidden that its nuclear deterrent is premised on the core belief of “first use but last resort”, this term has usually been seen by the western academics as an offensive nuclear posture. Other than Pakistan, only Israel shares same kind of doctrinal principle labelling it as a “Samson Option”, but it has never been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny in the western media or academics, as has been seen in the case of Pakistan. Ironically, while Pakistan is singled out for adopting a posture of “first use but last resort” which actually means that it could consider the employment of nuclear weapons once all other options have been exhausted, India is given a salutary status to its actually meaningless clause of “no first use.” Interestingly, not only in the west but some of the Pakistani scholars amongst the strategic community have fallen victim to this deceptive phrase in the Indian nuclear doctrine.
The Indian so-called “no first use” clause has three conditions attached to it which actually makes it redundant. The first condition says that, “any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat” which doesn’t rule out a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Second, in the clause 2.5 saying, “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers,” the term alliance can be translated into various terms. Like should there be a formal defence pact or a treaty between a nuclear weapon states or mere maintaining diplomatic, economic and cultural ties could also be considered as an alliance. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Iran can be considered as allies of Pakistan with regards to certain issues. Likewise, Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea also forms and alliance with the US and thus qualifies for a nuclear first strike. Finally, clause 2.3a, revised in 2003 states that, “however, in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.” This implies that if some UN contingent including few Indian troops is attacked with either a chemical or a biological agent in some of the remotest part of the world, India could retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Under such conditions, actually believing in the myth of Indian no first nuclear posture and doctrine is a self-alluded fallacy which practically makes no sense at all. Rather, it is primarily meant to maintain ambiguity with regards to first strike option if a situation is deemed necessary.

The writer SHAMS-UZ-ZAMAN is an M.Phil scholar at NDU, Islamabad and can be reached at: smszmn72@yahoo.com.


Myth of Indian ‘nuclear no first use’

Thats' what we have been saying all the time.... No first use policy does not mean we would not use it... Our army Chiefs have confirmed so man y times.... if we are attacked with minuscule or miniature nuclear device... there would be a full scale nuclear retaliation.

So for Pakistan, if it wants to use Nuclear arsenal... it has to be ...all or nothing game.