Experts tell PM, Drop "No First Use Nuke Posture"

Discussion in 'Strategic Forces' started by Zebra, Apr 30, 2016.

  1. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,007
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    http://idrw.org/experts-tell-pm-drop-no-first-use-nuke-posture/#more-93550

    Experts tell PM, Drop ” No First Use Nuke Posture “

    Published April 30, 2016
    SOURCE: DNA INDIA

    In the wake of emerging nuclear threats from China and Pakistan, strategic experts have asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review and articulate the country’s nuclear doctrine in greater detail. The panel of experts, notably including former deputy national security advisor, ambassador Satish Chandra; director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, Lt Gen BS Nagal, pointed out that a change in strategic environment brought about by the technological advancements and the geopolitical shifts regionally as well as globally have necessitated to review the doctrine, put in place in January 2003 — over four and a half years after the May 1998 tests.

    The main feature of the doctrine is “A No First Use Posture”, wherein nuclear weapons will be used only “in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere. It also calls for building and maintaining a credible minimum deterrent. Its main shortcoming is that it has not mentioned tactical weapons or nuclear bomblets that can be fired in the theatre of war through tanks and heavy guns. Arguing for a periodic review of India’s nuclear doctrine, the experts have asked for reinforcing a deterrence policy and signalling commitment to a massive retaliation posture in response to an attack with tactical weapons more effectively. The experts termed India’s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) effort as a factor of stability. The director general of India’s premier strategic thin-tank Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) Jayant Prasad, said it was opportune time to debate on the issue, following the changing nuclear doctrines and postures of the great powers, especially those of the United States, the Russian Federation, and China.

    Significant to mention that both China and Pakistan have not mentioned “No First Use” in their documents. In its National Defence white paper unveiled last year, China also announced to build a strategic missile early warning capability for its nuclear forces, similar to those of the United States and Russia. The United States maintains a network of satellites and land-based radars that can detect and track the launch of an enemy long-range missile heading towards its territory. This capability makes it possible to respond quickly. Instead of India’s “minimum deterrence”, Beijing’s theory of “limited deterrence”, entails development of enough capabilities to deter conventional, theatre and strategic war and to suppress escalation during a nuclear war. This requires a sufficient range of weapons and operational capabilities, especially to respond to any level of attack.

    Satish Chandra believes that appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) as recommended by the Kargil Review Committee as well upgradation of the NTRO as a capable apex techint organisation would also go a long way to convey a message that any attack on India would ensure swift and massive nuclear retaliation inflicting unacceptable damage. “An indication that we have in place multiple, well camouflaged and well secured vectors which are constantly being further refined in order to enable the country to inflict unacceptable damage even after absorbing a first strike by its adversaries,” says the former Deputy NSA.

    Pakistan doctrine is divided into four different thresholds before the weapons are being operationally charged during the conventional and nuclear war with an aggressor state. In an event of war between India and Pakistan, when an Indian military aggression is more likely to penetrate through Pakistan’s defences, which cannot be restored by conventional means, it would order use of nuclear weapons to stabilise the situation, as part of the first strike. While describing political threshold, it has made clear that any attempt to break away any of Pakistan’s province, significant in the wake of current crisis in the province of Balochistan, could invite a nuclear attack, if Islamabad has credible reason to believe that the integrity of the country was at stake. Of late, Pakistan accusing India of its involvement in Balochistan points towards this scenario.
     
  2.  
  3. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,007
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    I think they are very harsh words to use ---> Drop "No First Use Nuke Posture ".

    Try this ---> Adopt " All is fair in love and war ".

    My two cents though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2016
  4. gpawar

    gpawar Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2014
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    508
    Location:
    US
  5. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,007
    Likes Received:
    2,250
  6. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    Location:
    Gujarat
    We are not at war. No need to drop this doctrine. Even china too has this doctrine. I do not know what we are going to get by dropping this doctrine.
     
    Bahamut likes this.
  7. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,007
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    Sir, I am in no mood of loosing Gilgit, Baltistan.

    In short entire PoK.

    No matter what.

    And to hell with war, even it goes WW3.

    I swear to god.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2016
    HariPrasad-1 likes this.
  8. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    Location:
    Gujarat
    But for that There is no need to drop No first use doctrine.
     
    Indx TechStyle likes this.
  9. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    6,967
    Likes Received:
    7,504
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    This can help us as an argument against Non Proliferation.
     
    HariPrasad-1 likes this.
  10. garg_bharat

    garg_bharat Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,001
    Likes Received:
    999
    An India on nuclear hair trigger? Sounds interesting but not easy to achieve.

    My view is that entire concept of nuclear war is flawed. It is madness.

    It hardly makes any difference if we use first or they use first. Likely the results will be same and bad.

    The doctrine does not make a big difference here.
     
  11. Rahul Singh

    Rahul Singh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,538
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    This doctrine helps us separate conventional war from a nuclear kind by projecting nuclear holocaust if dirty bombs are used.

    This help us in engaging and defeating pakistan on matters of terrorism and now soon to come on PoK issue in conventional domain.

    Suppose we drop NFUP. How will the world react if we go in war over issues like terrorism? Where will world's pressure lie even if we don't show any intention of using N bomb?

    Bottomline:

    a. If we drop NFUP, we will make pakistani policy of terriosm or 4 th generation warfare under nuclear threat more effective by weakening our ability to respond conventionaly where we always have significant advantage.

    b. Against China we are defensive, n weapons or no n weapons.
     
  12. raja696

    raja696 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    470
    I guess to avoid conventional war with china. As china can use no first use policy to its advantage to wage limited conventional war by planting staged attacks.
     
  13. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    422
    First, neither side can win in a limited conventional war;
    Second, there is no much to gain even if you win a limited conventional war;
    Third, no big power is going to use nuclear weapons to win a limited conventional war.
     
  14. garg_bharat

    garg_bharat Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,001
    Likes Received:
    999
    I think India has already moved away from the concept of "limited conventional war".

    Nobody can define military objectives which are "limited" in scope and be free from escalation.

    You can call Kargil a limited conventional war, but it was initiated by Pakistan. If a war is initiated by India, it is unlikely to remain limited.

    I think in an all-out war, it hardly makes a difference who uses nukes first; the response will be swift. A difference of few minutes hardly makes a measurable difference.

    India's nuclear forces will immediately come into highest alert at the break of hostilities. (Within hours).

    So unless the war starts with a Pakistani nuclear attack (a sort of pre-emptive attack), which could delay India's response by a few hours, the response will be almost immediate in all other cases.
     
  15. garg_bharat

    garg_bharat Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,001
    Likes Received:
    999
    The government can always put nuclear forces on full alert in peacetime. It depends on evaluation of the existing situation by the top security establishment.

    So it is hard to say what kind of advantage an adversary can derive from "first use".
     
  16. raja696

    raja696 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    470
    yes both sides cant use nukes, but our side is subjected to weakness in tech advan in two front war. What I mean is we are giving enormous degree of freedom for china to arm twist us with no first use policy.

    Hypothetical:

    1. If china attacks India first conventionally.

    2. In conventional war there is no chance of escalation of war with china beyond certain point. At this juncture most probable is that Pakistan attacks us. Leading to 2 front war.

    3. India's helplessness is left with only option to use nukes, for which our chicken politicians will buckle under pressure

    4.Which leads to talks with Chinese who ends up with land grab at strategic points as they attacked us first.

    5. well with pakistan we will never stop war, which continues to the end with proxy arms supply of china.

    By this time frame we are subjected to pressure from International powers for cease fire under china's p5 umbrella.

    My only point of view is why we should show weakness in our policy , when we are actually weak.

    "No first use policy" will serve its moral when we are enough strong.

    when predator portray its weakness in camouflage for prey to attack first (no first use policy serves best).

    Are we Indians are Predators looking for prey?

    Our enemies have no threat of nukes from our "no first use policy"
    By not limiting them to think twice for adventures like conventional war.For there external or internal problems.
    They will be tempted to attack us when we are weak and we are giving them a chance.
     
  17. garg_bharat

    garg_bharat Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,001
    Likes Received:
    999
    @raja696, we must weigh both benefits and losses when we make a policy.

    A large nuclear force or a nuclear force on permanent alert entails significant expense.

    A nuclear force is not an alternative to conventional forces. India has complex security challenges which can be met with conventional force alone.

    India maintains very large conventional force. The effectiveness or not of such force is debatable; but the fact remains that this force is meant to prevent war and fight and win if the war occurs.

    India cannot assume for a second that its conventional posture is weak. If so there is a need to correct it. It cannot be replaced with a nuclear posture.
     
    raja696 likes this.
  18. Gessler

    Gessler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    1,389
    Location:
    Vizag, India
    It's important to not portray India as an irresponsible nuclear country. Some people don't realize the power of words.

    The more Pakistan rattles the nuclear sabre, the more India will be seen in a good light. You wouldn't believe how much countries like Iran are pissed at Pak threatening to use nukes here & there. As are most countries of the West & Israel.

    As of NFU, I haven't checked back for a long time, but I think it's actually no first-use against non-nuclear states. For example, what such a statement means is that if we get enough reasons to believe that Pakistan or rogue elements within the PA are going to launch an imminent N-strike on India or Indian forces...it's within the boundaries set by the policy to use a preemptive N-strike IF deemed necessary, to remove that threat.

    That preemptive strike may even be of a conventional nature, depending on strategic/tactical assessment.

    However, in practicality, (taking bits from a movie line I remember) the best way to ensure that whoever plans to carry out an N-strike against India (which may cripple our land-launch capabilities to whatever extent) has the knowledge that he will receive sufficient retaliatory punishment, regardless of how hard he pounds our first-strike capabilities. The SSBNs and the MIRVed nuclear-payloads on their missiles, which constitute our second-strike capability - are that knowledge.
     
  19. raja696

    raja696 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    470
    Now I agree and have a query why don't India have country specific nuke doctrine or as you mentioned above strategy will be better instead of completely NFU.
     
  20. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    6,652
    yeah go for it.

    Better not say anything. Next time someone asks--are you still using no first use policy? Just say- No comments!
     
    raja696 and garg_bharat like this.
  21. Immanuel

    Immanuel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    892
    Well taking into light the Pakis deploying tac nukes, best to remove NFU. The fear of a preemptive strategic strike will force them from doing silly things on the battlefield. However, keep in mind first use basically means, overwhelming massive strike i.e 'hit to kill' and end it. Nukes cannot be employed in a limit sense, the enemy needs to be wiped out.
     
    raja696 likes this.

Share This Page