Revise ‘no-first-use’ n-policy: Jaswant

[deckingraj]

Sir the verbal rehtoric of "no first use policy is just a face saving as its not necessary that India wont use it.

on the other hand Jaswant's rehtoric about changing the policy is only going to grab his party some noisy praises

i cannot agree more with you on this...However verbal rhetoric of first use policy is not smart either...Anyhow i don't mind as long as it is a rhetoric

 

[Dash]

There were some indications that the no first use policy will be revised and it will only be no first use policy for non nuclear weapon states....
I think we need to change our policy.

But honestly we can always use nukes against nuke power states first, based on the fact that we cant be eliminated first....

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

the policy should be revised ....warning followed by first use like in the case of the U.S , Russia and all other nuke powers except China and there are doubts over China's commitment to NFU in all circumstances . Till we get a credible second strike capability which can take anything from 10 to 15 years hence( depending on when all six of our nuke subs are up and running ) ... a no first strike against adverseries having a quantitative nuke advantage over us doesnt make much sense considering they are able to identify and take out many of our silos , nuke storage locations etc in a massive first strike . China's imagery analysis , network of spy sats and millitary intelligence is quite robust and the strategic partnership with Pakistan - this knowledge can and will probably be passed on to pakistan in case of a conflict.
Removing ambiguity and making our intentions clear will be a step in bolstering our deterrence towards the overall goal of stability in the subcontinent.

 

[deckingraj]

Raj I think India has conventional superiority in numbers but we need more tech which is coming along.....but we also need to stop living with this idea of conventional superiority. It doesn't hold any relevance in todays; atmosphere, armies today will do all they can to beat the game.....Take China for example and its usage of asymmetrical warfare to gain an advantage which it is exploiting to its advantage....Pakistan will follow the same path....and what is the best way to beat our Conventional advantage......well one of the top of my head is nukes....

This is where you are making a mistake. Nukes is no point of return....You nuke someone when you have decided that i am going down so now i will take the enemy down with me. Yes you want to do anything to defeat the enemy but not at the cost of your own mainland, no???

Saying that Pakistan wont react such a way is fooling ourselves because this a neighbor that has attacked has many times and though INDia has given it a good beating it continues to think it can and it will defeat us

That is where conventional superiority i even more important. Understand the frustration in opposite camp. They cannot defeat us conventionally, nukes is not an option so what should they do???? Strength is very important because it ensures peace....

That thinking is what led to Kargil ad only due to intense International pressure was Pakistan pushed to give up.....

Nopes. It was our constant negligence of conventional strength and intelligence failure which lead to Kargil. Ask yourself can anyone try it now????

it could've escalated ad who know if there was a bigger game plan involving China....I don;t think India analyzed the hiccups and potential response of its neighbors thoroughly....hell look at 26/11 and you can our analysis is alway post-action and not very good. There are still many flaws which I believe is related to interference and negligence.

i agree here. However 26/11 has definitely sent some serious message right down the spine of our strategist. Game is on...and recent reports suggest we are importing 9% of the defense equipments and leading the world. That is for some reason, no???

 

[deckingraj]

the policy should be revised ....warning followed by first use like in the case of the U.S , Russia and all other nuke powers except China and there are doubts over China's commitment to NFU in all circumstances . Till we get a credible second strike capability which can take anything from 10 to 15 years hence( depending on when all six of our nuke subs are up and running ) ... a no first strike against adverseries having a quantitative nuke advantage over us doesnt make much sense considering they are able to identify and take out many of our silos , nuke storage locations etc in a massive first strike . China's imagery analysis , network of spy sats and millitary intelligence is quite robust and the strategic partnership with Pakistan - this knowledge can and will probably be passed on to pakistan in case of a conflict.
Removing ambiguity and making our intentions clear will be a step in bolstering our deterrence towards the overall goal of stability in the subcontinent.

First strike make sense if we can detect that Pakistan is preparing for a nuke attack. Now consider a hypothetical scenario where Pak has decided to go for a first strike against us and we have detected it. Give me one good reason for us to wait till those missile reach India...Do you honestly think that no first use policy will stop us from launching our nukes before we are nuked???? Answer is plain no....So now give me a good reason to change the policy.....

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

First strike make sense if we can detect that Pakistan is preparing for a nuke attack. Now consider a hypothetical scenario where Pak has decided to go for a first strike against us and we have detected it. Give me one good reason for us to wait till those missile reach India...Do you honestly think that no first use policy will stop us from launching our nukes before we are nuked???? Answer is plain no....So now give me a good reason to change the policy.....

That is not exactly the case is it ? because if ( in the aforementioned scenario ) we launch our nukes after we 've detected launches against targets on Indian soil then our targets would be strategic & military installations , maybe civilian centres in retaliation etc etc . However the damage on our side would be massive - military targets - bases , storage facilities , Trombay , silos - even cities all subject to how potent our ABM system really is.

With MIRV ed missiles I suppose other than save a very few selected , high value assets there isn't much we can do to prevent devastation.

Now considering an alternate scenario......

Suppose backed up by a strong military intelligence , our own recon sat network etc we manage to identify most of their launch sites , storage locations etc
and the moment we see the crisis taking a turn for the worse ( forcing Pakistan to recourse to nukes ) we Pre-empt their strike by one of our own against strictly military targets to neutralize most of their nuke assets .
This would dramatically reduce civilian casualties on both sides of the border wouldnt it ?

The whole premise of this subcontinental MAD doctrine is that in the event of a conflict when Pakistan's existence is threatened by our conventional forces , they will resort to the nuke option and they deliberately keep the nuke threshold low so as to keep our planners unsure when exactly the point of no-return is . We could easily neutralize this unnecessary hinderance by changing our own .

Some folks seem to be thinking that in the event of a war we get to change the rules which is true but since we have democratic traditions with the army firmly under civilian control it would be far better to remove any doubt in our military high command right from the onset . Once a conflict has begun even if it be conventional , The PM should not be left to interfere with the army's strategic thinking all because of one of his fingers on the red button. It should be clarified and sorted out much much in advance.

 

[prototype]

i completely agree with jaswant,India need to reconsider its position on no first use policy,this policy itself at the first place was a joke when India is in a unique position which no country had ever faced,being sandwitched between two nuclear states,one being rougely threatening the use of nukes of India at every drop of hat only because of the confirmation of India not using it first.

I dont know why India is so much stuck in this Gandhian philosophies,if it was so why then developing nukes at first place,this weapons r for use when the situation utmost demand it,not for using after after multiple cities and million's of people r converted to ash.

India should change its policy and convert it to No use against any non nuclear power,but never no first use.

 

[deckingraj]

That is not exactly the case is it ? because if ( in the aforementioned scenario ) we launch our nukes after we 've detected launches against targets on Indian soil then our targets would be strategic & military installations , maybe civilian centres in retaliation etc etc . However the damage on our side would be massive - military targets - bases , storage facilities , Trombay , silos - even cities all subject to how potent our ABM system really is.

May be you got me wrong or may be i was not clear. I think we are saying the same things minus declaration of first use. As i said the moment we are convinced enemy is preparing for a nuke strike we should go for it and i believe we will irrespective of what our nuclear policy is. So now my simple question is what extra benefits you will get by officially declaring this open secret???

With MIRV ed missiles I suppose other than save a very few selected , high value assets there isn't much we can do to prevent devastation.

doesn't matter...you and i anyways will get cooked....

Now considering an alternate scenario......

Suppose backed up by a strong military intelligence , our own recon sat network etc we manage to identify most of their launch sites , storage locations etc
and the moment we see the crisis taking a turn for the worse ( forcing Pakistan to recourse to nukes ) we Pre-empt their strike by one of our own against strictly military targets to neutralize most of their nuke assets .
This would dramatically reduce civilian casualties on both sides of the border wouldnt it ?

This is very risky and even in your statement you are saying that we will not be able to get rid of all the launch sites...now million dollar question is how would you know that you have enough information to take down those sites. Anyhow may be we can may be we can't but ets assume we can please tell me why can't we do what you are suggesting without declaring First use policy....

The whole premise of this subcontinental MAD doctrine is that in the event of a conflict when Pakistan's existence is threatened by our conventional forces , they will resort to the nuke option and they deliberately keep the nuke threshold low so as to keep our planners unsure when exactly the point of no-return is . We could easily neutralize this unnecessary hinderance by changing our own .

sorry you are taking it too simplistically. By targeting lauch sites we are asking for nuclear retaliation. The same military planners will get even more grave question to answer...i don't even want to loose a single city for entire Pakistan...are you????

Some folks seem to be thinking that in the event of a war we get to change the rules which is true but since we have democratic traditions with the army firmly under civilian control it would be far better to remove any doubt in our military high command right from the onset . Once a conflict has begun even if it be conventional , The PM should not be left to interfere with the army's strategic thinking all because of one of his fingers on the red button. It should be clarified and sorted out much much in advance.

What makes you think military will ever get green signal to lauch nukes anywhere before the last minute. This is grave grave dengerous if we allow the military to decide when is the right time to lauch nukes....If you don't know what i mean just look right across the border and understand military should always be under civilian govt. Red button should always be in the hand of PM...Military should tell this is the right time to launch and inform about the pros and cons...Thereafter leave it to civilian govt to decide....

 

[deckingraj]

This is no gandhian policy....this is chanikya on the run.....Look at how world treat us when it comes to nukes and how our neighbours...Please understand the difference in our ambitions/foreign policy and our neighbours....Bragging about nukes is not the right policy my friend. We have it the whole world knows about it....we will use it whenever we will feel is the right time for us to use....First use or no First use will not be considered.....

 

[Dash]

This is no gandhian policy....this is chanikya on the run.....Look at how world treat us when it comes to nukes and how our neighbours...Please understand the difference in our ambitions/foreign policy and our neighbours....Bragging about nukes is not the right policy my friend. We have it the whole world knows about it....we will use it whenever we will feel is the right time for us to use....First use or no First use will not be considered.....

That is correct!!.....