Nuclear weapons only for strategic deterrence: Army chief

[trident2010]

Nuclear weapons only for strategic deterrence: Army chief


NEW DELHI: India has rejected Pakistan's continuing veiled threats of using tactical nuclear missiles in the battlefield to deter Indian forces, holding that no one should be foolish enough to think of nuclear weapons as war-waging weapons.

"Let's be quite clear on it... Nuclear weapons are not for war-fighting. They have got a strategic significance and that is where it should end," said Army chief General V K Singh, speaking on the sidelines of the 64th Army Day on Sunday.

Asked about reports that both Pakistan and China were fast bolstering their nuclear arsenals, Gen Singh said, "I and my Army are not bothered about who has nuclear weapons. We have our task cut out and we will progress along that."

The "task" is to "transform" the 1.13-million strong force into "an agile, lethal and networked force", which can rapidly mobilize and then launch and sustain multiple armoured thrusts across the border, even as India maintains a credible minimum nuclear deterrent.

The largely futile Operation Parakram, the massive forward troop mobilization along the western front after the Parliament attack in December 2001, taught the Army harsh lessons since it took almost a month for it to amass strike formations at the borders. By then, the US had prevailed on the then NDA regime to back down, and Pakistan had shored up its defences.

"A lot has changed since the days of Op Parakram. If we did something in 15 days then, we can do it in seven days now. After two years, we may be able to do it in three days," Gen Singh said.

In other words, the Army's three "strike" corps -- 1 Corps (Mathura), 2 Corps (Ambala) and 21 Corps (Bhopal), each with their three to four self-contained, highly-mobile "battle groups" centered around T-90S and T-72 M1 tanks - can now be ready at their border launch points within a week of the government directive.

The Army is now working towards further cutting down this mobilization timeframe to 72 to 96 hours, even as its 10 "pivot corps" undergo "structural changes", operational logistics are reorganized and "theatrisation of combat support" tested.

Gen Singh did admit the Army was fine-tuning its "Pro-Active Strategy", sometimes dubbed the "Cold Start" doctrine, to achieve desired politico-military results. The unstated aim is to punish Pakistan in a limited manner, not invade or occupy its territory, in the event of a terror strike.

The strategy to launch multiple blitzkrieg thrusts across the border, tested in two major exercises Vijayee Bhava and Sudarshan Shakti last year, has certainly got Pakistan worried.

Having already boosted its nuclear arsenal to around 90-110 warheads, compared to India's 80-100, Pakistan has also taken to projecting its 60-km Nasr (Hatf-IX) nuclear missile as a fitting riposte to thwart any such Indian move.

But while India has a declared commitment of "no first-use", its nuclear doctrine does hold that "nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage". India even retains the option to retaliate with nuclear weapons if its forces "anywhere" are attacked with biological or chemical weapons.



Nuclear weapons only for strategic deterrence: Army chief - The Times of India

 

[Pak47]

 

[Smarterthanyou]

I can't post topics yet and was not sure where I should post this news. This has been, as I have read, India's wish for a long time and apparently India worked very hard behind the scenes with our government to make it happen. It is also a great foreign relations win for the US in china's backyard. This should also be a good omen for India's national security aspirations.

US makes moves into Burma

WASHINGTON, Jan 13 (Reuters) - The United States said on Friday it was ready to exchange ambassadors with Myanmar as President Barack Obama welcomed the release of 200 political prisoners as a "substantial step forward for democratic reform" in the Southeast Asian country.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington was ready to begin the process of exchanging full ambassadors after an absence of two decades, and would consider additional measures if the new civilian-led government's reforms continue.

"Much more remains to be done to meet the aspirations of the Burmese people, but the United States is committed to continuing our engagement," Obama said in a statement.

The U.S. move followed Myanmar's announcement that it was freeing some 200 political prisoners in an amnesty in the latest sign of change in a country that has spent half a century under authoritarian rule.

The United States downgraded its diplomatic representation in Myanmar to charge d'affaires following a military coup in 1988 and a violent crackdown on pro-democracy protests in the country, formerly known as Burma.

The United States and other western nations have also imposed a series of broad economic sanctions, which analysts say have crippled the country's economy and driven it deeper into the embrace of regional power China.

Myanmar held elections last March which saw a nominally civilian government -- although still heavily weighted toward the military -- take over from the ruling junta.

Since then, the government has embarked on a series of reforms that have prompted the United States and other western nations to suggest they may eventually remove sanctions if enough progress is made.

Clinton, who traveled to the isolated Southeast Asian nation in December, said the United States welcomed reforms already under way, which included freeing veteran pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in November 2010.

"I intend to call President Thein Sein and Aung Sang Suu Kyi this weekend to underscore our commitment to walk together with them on the path of reform," Clinton said.

Clinton said the United States would work with Myanmar to address concerns of ethnic minority groups, ensure that a by-election scheduled for April 1 are free and fair, and that all remaining political prisoners are also released.

"But this is a momentous day for the diverse people of Burma and we will continue to support them, and their efforts, and to encourage the government to take bold steps that build the kind of free and prosperous nation  they desire to see," she said. (Reporting By Matt Spetalnick)

 

[third eye]

What VK Singh says is right.

Nukes are not field artillery that can be touted around , they are strat weapons to be used most judiciously with complete knowledege of their ramifications.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Tell that to Nasr.

 

[tjpf]

Tell that to Nasr.

that it will lead to MAD!

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

that it will lead to MAD!

That is the whole point of = "lowering the nuclear threshold".

 

[janon]

Tell that to Nasr.

As the article makes it clear, any use of nasr on our troops would invite massive retaliation using all our nuclear assets. Which is why it would be unwise to use it unless pak is prepared to take it to the strategic level. It won't be used as field artillery - if it is, from then on the game would change completely.

 

[tjpf]

That is the whole point of = "lowering the nuclear threshold".

still i stand by my statement.
once the bluff is called the ball will be in pakisatni's court

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

As the article makes it clear, any use of nasr on our troops would invite massive retaliation using all our nuclear assets. Which is why it would be unwise to use it unless pak is prepared to take it to the strategic level. It won't be used as field artillery - if it is, from then on the game would change completely.

Answered in the post above yours.

What do you think "lowering the nuclear threshold" means?

 

[tjpf]

Answered in the post above yours.

What do you think "lowering the nuclear threshold" means?

corrected in the one below yours

 

[janon]

Answered in the post above yours.

What do you think "lowering the nuclear threshold" means?

And that proves the point - that post number 4 is right. Nuclear weapons cannot be touted as field artillery.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

And that proves the point - that post number 4 is right. Nuclear weapons cannot be touted as field artillery.

If you're talking about the effects of using it, then sure. In practical terms though, it is designed to be a highly mobile weapons system.

Anyway, the entire point of lowering the nuclear threshold is to deter a conventional attack in the first place.

And it is still to be seen whether India would dare to raise the stakes after Nasr is used.

 

[janon]

If you're talking about the effects of using it, then sure. In practical terms though, it is designed to be a highly mobile weapons system.

Anyway, the entire point of lowering the nuclear threshold is to deter a conventional attack in the first place.

And it is still to be seen whether India would dare to raise the stakes after Nasr is used.

Well it is still to be seen whether Nasr works at all. No country has miniaturised nuclear warheads to that extent. If it does work, and if pakistan uses it, yes India will not hesitate to use nukes, and plenty of them. Our policy is simple - no first use, but massive retaliation.

 

[tjpf]

Well it is still to be seen whether the Nasr works at all. No country has miniaturised nuclear warheads to that extent. If it does work, and if pakistan uses it, yes India will not hesitate to use nukes. Our policy is simple - no first use, but massive retaliation.

spot on.

once the bluff is called then we will know the truth.