TrueSpirit
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,893
- Likes
- 841
We just need to amend our nuclear doctrine to include a point which says we can use preemptive nuclear strike in case case of multi-nation aggression on India.
Or simply put NFU doesn't hold true for multi-nation aggression.
The red lines should included what we perceive as aggression, when we are engaged in military conflict with any other nation.
This should be clearly mentioned and not in a ambiguous statement in our NFU policy.
Times were different then (WW2 era). US of A could afford to nuke Japs & get away with it. No other nations were nuclear powers then. Might was right, then (in WW2) & even today. Today's geo-political realities just don't permit India to indulge in such "mis-adventures". Yes, resorting to nukes pro-actively, in conventional warfare is a mis-adventure that decision-makers sitting in India simply won't commit themselves too. And, it might sound far-fetched today but with every passing year, our capability to simultaneously take on both our friendly neighbors is growing steadily, albeit at a pace slower than we would expect.I understand what you are saying, and trust me, I completely do. I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
I understand that nukes are a deterrent and are not meant to be used, but the point is, in a situation when India has already been invaded by Pakistan and PLA, the deterrence has already failed! In other words, this deterrence has not deterred a dual invasion. What would India do then? Pretend that since nukes are meant for deterrence only and not for use, and dump them into the Bay of Bengal?
I don't see the point in hanging on to this NFU policy when India is being attacked by two nuclear armed countries. Do you see the point? I really don't. And if India uses nukes, in that situation, India will become estranged? How? The US used atomic bombs on non-nuclear Japan; where, I don't see the US being estranged.
Last edited: