Question on Indian nuclear doctrine...

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Question to all, our nuclear doctrine 2.3 (a) says

2.3. India shall pursue a doctrine of credible minimum nuclear deterrence. In this policy of "retaliation only", the survivability of our arsenal is critical. This is a dynamic concept related to the strategic environment, technological imperatives and the needs of national security. The actual size components, deployment and employment of nuclear forces will be decided in the light of these factors. India's peacetime posture aims at convincing any potential aggressor that :

(a) any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat: and
this is ambiguity, since it is part of nuclear doctrine, so it really means that if someone threatened with nuclear weapon, we can take out them with nuclear weapons...................:scared2:

What members think about this interpretation :confused: ?
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
I am sure Pakistanis are taking note of what i have posted above.
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,242
Likes
7,522
Country flag
Question to all, our nuclear doctrine 2.3 (a) says



this is ambiguity, since it is part of nuclear doctrine, so it really means that if someone threatened with nuclear weapon, we can take out them with nuclear weapons...................:scared2:

What members think about this interpretation :confused: ?
I think this means our nukes would be put on DEFCON 1 (US) or Threat Level: Critical (UK) with VVIPs moved to NBC bunkers and strategic command on hair trigger standby.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
I think this means our nukes would be put on DEFCON 1 (US) or Threat Level: Critical (UK) with VVIPs moved to NBC bunkers and strategic command on hair trigger standby.
it is more then that, it means if they threatened us, we will nuke their nuclear force...............
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,504
Likes
22,477
Country flag
Saya your interpretation is right, that ambiguity is willful.
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,242
Likes
7,522
Country flag
Think it like the difference between Murder and Attempt to Murder.

If Pakis nuke us, we will go for bona fide second strike. That's murder against murder.

But, if Pakis start arming nukes, and we do preemptive strikes, would that be first strike or second strike? If you consider whose warhead detonated first, then India's strike would be first strike. But if you consider Attempt to nuke India by pakis, then it becomes second strike. Murder in defence of attempted murder.

So, if we do a preemptive strike against Pakis based on irrefutable proof of imminent Paki Nuke launch, we are essentially doing a second strike. ;)

yeah that is what i am saying if need be we will move out of no first use.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,998
Likes
2,299
Country flag
Question to all, our nuclear doctrine 2.3 (a) says



this is ambiguity, since it is part of nuclear doctrine, so it really means that if someone threatened with nuclear weapon, we can take out them with nuclear weapons...................:scared2:

What members think about this interpretation :confused: ?
No, it means: India will get its nuke asernal ready when you feel an nuclear war is coming! But it is still defensive. There will be no india nuke weapon flying in the sky until the first nuclear explosion within India. It is as the same as China: we will not start a nuclear war unless we are hit by nuke first.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,998
Likes
2,299
Country flag
I am sure Pakistanis are taking note of what i have posted above.
No, they are not!
For them, nuclear weapon is like a suicide bomb which will be used when they are losing a full scale conventional war.
The message they send is: don't push me too far, otherwise you will go down with me!
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Think it like the difference between Murder and Attempt to Murder.

If Pakis nuke us, we will go for bona fide second strike. That's murder against murder.

But, if Pakis start arming nukes, and we do preemptive strikes, would that be first strike or second strike? If you consider whose warhead detonated first, then India's strike would be first strike. But if you consider Attempt to nuke India by pakis, then it becomes second strike. Murder in defence of attempted murder.

So, if we do a preemptive strike against Pakis based on irrefutable proof of imminent Paki Nuke launch, we are essentially doing a second strike. ;)
What you're describing is an extreme form of launch on warning, and is actually more aggressive than even the US and Russian force postures.

Launch on warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If India adopted nuclear pre-emption, it would have the most aggressive nuclear doctrine in the world.

Based on the game-theory analyses of nuclear war (as encapsulated by Herman Kahn in his seminal work On Thermonuclear War), the only reason to adopt such a doctrine would be a severe lack of confidence in Indian abilities to detect and react to Pakistani launches, or complete confidence that Pakistan cannot detect and react to Indian launches - or a belief that Pakistan has sufficient technical capability to utilize the following tactics:

Strategies are available that can reduce the effectiveness of a launch on warning stance. For example, the first-strike nation can use a technique called X-ray pin-down to delay a retaliatory response. This technique involves a barrage of submarine-based missiles fired from close range in a "depressed trajectory" mode that reaches its targets in minutes. The warheads would be set to explode every minute or so at high altitudes, which significantly disrupts the ability of the attacked nation to successfully launch its own ICBMs.[6] Additionally, submarines could launch a depressed-trajectory strike against the capital of the targeted country, in an effort to destroy its command structure before any retaliatory decision could be made. This is known as a decapitation strike.
The side that launches a well-coordinated first strike can pin down the retaliatory forces of the other country by launching a barrage of submarine based missiles from close range, in a fast "depressed trajectory" mode, and exploding the warheads every minute or so at high altitudes over the ICBM fields of the targeted country, using a technique called X-ray pin-down. This makes it impossible to launch the ICBMs without damaging their navigation systems for as long as the high-altitude detonations continue. This buys extra time for the wave of first strike ICBMs to complete their flights and hit their targets, which are the ICBMs that have been pinned down in their silos.
Since neither Pakistan nor India possesses enough warheads to waste on suppressing enemy electronic systems via continual exoatmospheric nuclear detonations, then the only other reason India would want nuclear pre-emption would be fear that Pakistan can decapitate the Indian command structure.

In that case, Kahn writes that a far better strategy (mathematically proven via game theory) instead of pre-emptive nuking is giving nuclear commanders release authority in the confirmed destruction of higher-level command facilities - e.g. letters of last intent, which several posters here have already elaborated upon.
 
Last edited:

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
If members may recall my posts about CSD and Pak nukes, I had repeatedly stated that Our NFU has a willfull ambiguity to deal with nations like Pak. NFU does not mean that we have given up on right to self defence or right to life is we look at comparable provisions in our acts in India.
The moment we have credible info that we are about to be nuked, we will take retaliatory measures to eliminate that threat using our nukes. This what it means.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
If members may recall my posts about CSD and Pak nukes, I had repeatedly stated that Our NFU has a willfull ambiguity to deal with nations like Pak. NFU does not mean that we have given up on right to self defence or right to life is we look at comparable provisions in our acts in India.
The moment we have credible info that we are about to be nuked, we will take retaliatory measures to eliminate that threat using our nukes. This what it means.
yeah you are right, if we know that they are about to use nukes and if we know the location, we will use nukes in self defence.
 

kseeker

Retired
New Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
2,515
Likes
2,126
If members may recall my posts about CSD and Pak nukes, I had repeatedly stated that Our NFU has a willfull ambiguity to deal with nations like Pak. NFU does not mean that we have given up on right to self defence or right to life is we look at comparable provisions in our acts in India.
The moment we have credible info that we are about to be nuked, we will take retaliatory measures to eliminate that threat using our nukes. This what it means.
Preemptive strike doesn't really require nukes, right ?

Say, if we have a credible proof that, our enemy is preparing for nuke strike, in that case we can destroy their facilities using conventional weapons, why involve nukes in that case ?
 

vishwaprasad

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
474
Likes
149
Country flag
If things were in my hand I would have first of all retired that crap policy called NO FIRST USE....it is because of this kind of our soft nature today India is a joke in sub continent where no neighbor takes her seriously, be it border violation from China, Pak, Keran infiltration or attitude from Maldives, Lanka etc.... in spite of her being a nuclear power armed with ICBMs.....

We should declare our nuclear policy as Flexible depending on the situation during the war....When you have 2 nuclear armed aggressive neighbors on your east and west you cannot threaten them with your NO FIRST USE policy.....
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
If things were in my hand I would have first of all retired that crap policy called NO FIRST USE....it is because of this kind of our soft nature today India is a joke in sub continent where no neighbor takes her seriously, be it border violation from China, Pak, Keran infiltration or attitude from Maldives, Lanka etc.... in spite of her being a nuclear power armed with ICBMs.....

We should declare our nuclear policy as Flexible depending on the situation during the war....When you have 2 nuclear armed aggressive neighbors on your east and west you cannot threaten them with your NO FIRST USE policy.....
read the first post again it is not NFU.
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
Preemptive strike doesn't really require nukes, right ?

Say, if we have a credible proof that, our enemy is preparing for nuke strike, in that case we can destroy their facilities using conventional weapons, why involve nukes in that case ?
What happens if you are not able to take out all their nukes and a few slip thru? What will be the cost of such a stupidity?
 

DivineHeretic

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
What happens if you are not able to take out all their nukes and a few slip thru? What will be the cost of such a stupidity?
What happens if we are faced with a massive annihilation by 120 nukes v/s say an attack by 20-30 nukes??

If we are faced with an inevitable nuclear conflict, do we take all their hits before counter attacking and in the process get destroyed, or do we strike first, and reduce the number of nukes attacking us by 70-80%?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top