India's Nuclear Doctrine

[Sabir]

Just imagine a situation. India is in war against her hostile neighbour. And the news has come that the neighbour continuously beaten conventionally arrenging to nuke India. What should India do? It will lunch its nuclear missile before the enemy to save millions of Indians or it will stick with no first use policy and wait for the enemy missiles to see its own citizens to be slaughtered before going for retaliation. Is the image of a good boy to international community is more precious than life of millions of Indians? countries like US, UK mentioned to use nuclear weapon in defencive purpose, then why India should not review its no first use policy when its surrounded by a country with ambiguous and unreliable 'no first use policy' and another blatuntly threatening to nuke India if necessary. What do you think?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

No first use policy is idiotic when you have 2 nuclear neighbors with nukes pointed at you, and one looking forward to the day to use them.

 

[Yusuf]

A no first use policy is followed even by the Chinese. Remember we don't have the capability to impose a crippling first strike and make sure all their nukes are destroyed. So if thst can't be assured, we cannot think of a first strike.

 

[Sabir]

A no first use policy is followed even by the Chinese. Remember we don't have the capability to impose a crippling first strike and make sure all their nukes are destroyed. So if thst can't be assured, we cannot think of a first strike.

my question is what India should do when enemy nuke strike is imminent.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

A no first use policy is followed even by the Chinese. Remember we don't have the capability to impose a crippling first strike and make sure all their nukes are destroyed. So if thst can't be assured, we cannot think of a first strike.

so there will be collateral damage no matter what our policy is, then why not develop a crippling first strike capability? i see nukes use more likely against pakistan than china so i think against pak we do have a crippling ability?? ideally neutron bombs are more suited for use against pakistan.

 

[Soham]

It need not be reviewed.
As Yusuf said, our arsenal is not impressive enough to carry out an assured strike to take out the enemy nukes.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

It need not be reviewed.
As Yusuf said, our arsenal is not impressive enough to carry out an assured strike to take out the enemy nukes.

then the question becomes how do we react when we are at the receiving end? how much damage is acceptable??

 

[Soham]

my question is what India should do when enemy nuke strike is imminent.

Prepare the ABM defence. Build nuclear shelters at likely targets. Patrol the skies to block an aerial delivery and ready our nukes to retaliate.

 

[Soham]

then the question becomes how do we react when we are at the receiving end? how much damage is acceptable??

I've answered the reactions in the prev. post.
About acceptable damage... a single nuclear warhead on the Indian territory is enough of a reason to launch our retaliatory strikes.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

my question is what India should do when enemy nuke strike is imminent.

how would we be sure it is not a conventional strike? our intelligence would have to be 100% perfect.

 

[Sabir]

Prepare the ABM defence. Build nuclear shelters at likely targets. Patrol the skies to block an aerial delivery and ready our nukes to retaliate.

first one and third one cant give any assurance.
second one impossible (we cant give roof over the head of all our citizens)
fourth one we have.
But what about the life of your fellow countrymen who are going to be slaughtered. If you know your enemy is preparing to nuke you it is more reliable to nuke all the area where the lunch could take place.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

I've answered the reactions in the prev. post.
About acceptable damage... a single nuclear warhead on the Indian territory is enough of a reason to launch our retaliatory strikes.

my point is even one is too much, why accept the one because of policy??

 

[Daredevil]

No first use (NFU) policy of nuclear weapons is a smart choice as it will act as a deterrent in the absence of large number of nuclear weapons in our arsenal. As yusuf pointed out, there is no point in going for first strike if you are not sure of blunting the nuclear counter-strike from the enemy and moreover with first strike you will also lose international support. NFU policy gives moral superiority and at the same time it gives us a chance to annihilate majority of Pakistan, without any moral obligations, if it strikes first. Since China also has NFU policy we don't have to be as anxious as in the case of Pakistan, whose projected nuclear threshold is very low (What is the real threshold, no body knows).

 

[Sabir]

how would we be sure it is not a conventional strike? our intelligence would have to be 100% perfect.

other side of the coin means death of millions.... who is ready to gamble?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

other side of the coin means deathof millions.... who is ready to gamble?

with the no first use policy it would be a gamble until our BMD is complete, How do we react after we have intercepted a nuke?? is the no first use policy in place even then??

 

[Daredevil]

Once ABM is active, the effectiveness of first strike by Pakistan will be that much lower and give us a chance for retaliatory strikes even without being hit by nuclear weapons.

 

[Yusuf]

Guys, India, pakistan and China keep their nukes in component form. There will never be a time when they will surprise us with a first strike. Remember in kargil war, Musharraff had the big idea to launch nukes but was immediately caught by the Americans. India is also developing satellites that can detect duch activities. We can order airstrikes to take them out. We don't need nukes for that.
Also the other question is, whet will be the target gir Indian first strike? Population centres? Not happening.
The articles posted by OoE in anoother thread about use of nukes was enlightening.

 

[Soham]

first one and third one cant give any assurance.
second one impossible (we cant give roof over the head of all our citizens)
fourth one we have.
But what about the life of your fellow countrymen who are going to be slaughtered. If you know your enemy is preparing to nuke you it is more reliable to nuke all the area where the lunch could take place.

my point is even one is too much, why accept the one because of policy??

Nuking another country is no joke. Just because we "suspect" that the other side might nuke us, we can't justify emptying our arsenal to create a wasteland of the other country.

Intelligence about a probable nuclear attack on our country can never be fool-proof. Secondly, our first strike can't assure destruction of all launch pads of Nuclear missiles. If if we manage to, there's always an aerial route.
Our first strike will provide the perfect reason for the other side to put in everything that they've got.

Nobody wants a nuclear war. Nor us, nor the Pakistanis.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Guys, India, pakistan and China keep their nukes in component form. There will never be a time when they will surprise us with a first strike. Remember in kargil war, Musharraff had the big idea to launch nukes but was immediately caught by the Americans. India is also developing satellites that can detect duch activities. We can order airstrikes to take them out. We don't need nukes for that.
Also the other question is, whet will be the target gir Indian first strike? Population centres? Not happening.
The articles posted by OoE in anoother thread about use of nukes was enlightening.

If our major cities are the targets for pak nukes what are our targets???(other than their installations)

 

[Sabir]

Once ABM is active, the effectiveness of first strike by Pakistan will be that much lower and give us a chance for retaliatory strikes even without being hit by nuclear weapons.

still it cant give 100% gurantee. May be in future something will be developped to protect a country totally from any hostile projectile. But with current technology risk will always be there.