India's Nuclear Doctrine

[Officer of Engineers]

Here is a clue: we don't have any. Neither does China or Pakistan.

Neither does the UK and France and the Americans and Russians are in the process of withdrawing theirs from service.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Yes pop centers are first step (sufficient deterrent too) but it would be a lot better if PLA is wiped out and Lay Chinese lives, that gives an entirely new dimension to the whole idea. That is why perhaps the doctrine should be refined further and of course with it all that goes with it.




I am sure most Indians who want to strengthen the doctrine are aware of this. Those who are not (the majority) should probably be educated about the sociol political economic and identity issues involved.

That is why probably the Two front war and 20/30 plan should be also included as a trigger for giving up NFU.



Absolutely nobody in the forum is arguing with Gen. Sunderji. We all want to strenghten his ideas, which are one of the best peice of ideas that came along.



Now that you are using this site as source. Probably even you are convinced that Indians need to refine there weaponry further esp TN (this site is very confident of ITN not being present).



Sir in certain matters there can be no trust for the simple reason that there can be no verifiability.
That is why the doctrine has to provide for every single eventuality.

You know, I could answer you honestly and even try to follow your thinking but I've come to realization that you're just a troll. Anything I say will matter not one bit. You'll just grab a bit of narvana to throw me off.

I asked that had you've shed blood. It is obvious that you did not. I don't know if I had and I don't want to know but the fact that you astout some philosophy that you had tells me that you don't have the slightest clue about killing another human being.

Therefore, do not try to claim you are refining the Good General's doctrines. You are not in his league, let alone his intellect. There is a lot of hard thinking in his quotes and none you've even pretend to understood but gloss over by your ego complex that you know better.

Screw off.

 

[INDIANBULL]

You may be enthusiasic about defense matters but at least try to remain realistic. Military people are not in the business for fantasy games or mental masturbation.

What is so unrealistic in developing nukes with that kind of yeild? i think our nuclear tests show that we are on a way to develop those nukes. Am i fantasising too much or those guys in US or Canada etc simply cannt digest the fact that India is developing these kind of weapons???

 

[advaita]

You know, I could answer you honestly and even try to follow your thinking but I've come to realization that you're just a troll. Anything I say will matter not one bit. You'll just grab a bit of narvana to throw me off.

I asked that had you've shed blood. It is obvious that you did not. I don't know if I had and I don't want to know but the fact that you astout some philosophy that you had tells me that you don't have the slightest clue about killing another human being.

Therefore, do not try to claim you are refining the Good General's doctrines. You are not in his league, let alone his intellect. There is a lot of hard thinking in his quotes and none you've even pretend to understood but gloss over by your ego complex that you know better.

Screw off.

I respect your views about my views.
I knew my views are just that... views. That is why I have put in enough caveats in the post your reply refers to.
I also submit that I am not in the same class as Gen. Sunderji....The intention was never there.
Boond boond se ghada bharta hai. My ideas were just my contribution to the ocean.

My ideas are for survival of my country only and in respect thereof I have recently arrived at the conclusion that things are being taken care of by IG, whichever be the party in power.

I second that.

You are seconding a resolution that was withdrawn by the proposer before you seconded it.

 

[Antimony]

You are seconding a resolution that was withdrawn by the proposer before you seconded it.

Toned down, dear chap, toned down

I still think you are, shall we say, a tad "proactive" about nukes

 

[advaita]

Toned down, dear chap, toned down

I still think you are, shall we say, a tad "proactive" about nukes

I am interested not in the nukes as weapons.

I also dont believe they are controllable once started. In fact i suspect everybody knows this and that is why MAD was successful.

My only real concern is about the fact that our masses are not properly educated about these issues. That may result in an irreconciliation if and when the time does come. In fact by making the populace see reason in the usage we can turn this weakness into a strength along the same lines that allowed our society to coalesce during our earlier defences.

Russians, Chinese and Pakistanis dont have to worry about these issues cos theres is not a democracy. They can simply .......

US, UK and French public was already well aware, all through history.
Rest of the world either is not important enough to be nuked or covered under one guys or the others blanket.

You can judge the rest for yourself.

live like you die tomorrow learn like you live forever - Gandhi

 

[Antimony]

I am interested not in the nukes as weapons.

I also dont believe they are controllable once started. In fact i suspect everybody knows this and that is why MAD was successful.

Exactly why the stress is on deterrence, not on war fighting

My only real concern is about the fact that our masses are not properly educated about these issues. That may result in an irreconciliation if and when the time does come. In fact by making the populace see reason in the usage we can turn this weakness into a strength along the same lines that allowed our society to coalesce during our earlier defences.

And that reflects on the comments some are making on this board. Not only do we not know about this issue, we seem resistant to any education. We are not even asking the proper questions to get this understanding. Most comments are about why we don't test so that we can fly off a 3 MT tactical nuke. There has been limited efforts to understand terms like deterrence, war-fighting, tactical nukes, strategic nukes or to compare arsenals and fissile stocks meaningfully. Neither do I see any efforts to understand the effects of a country that chooses to launch nukes.

Russians, Chinese and Pakistanis dont have to worry about these issues cos theres is not a democracy. They can simply .......

The Russians and Chinese do want to survive though (can't speak with 100% certainty about the Pakistanis).

About the Chinese, please note that they have the misfortune of being surrounded by vastly superior forces (the Russians, the Americans, the Japanese). A large part of their deterrence is aimed at Russia.

Consider this, if the Chinese break their NFU treaty with us and knock us down, what do you think happens. After the smoke has cleared following the corresponding counter-strikes from India and counter-counter-counter-strikes from China, they become a vastly weakened nation with everyone's nuclear barrels pointing at them. Do you think they do not realize this?

 

[Soham]

advaita,

Nobody here is in mad love with a nuclear conflict. Your previous posts are making it look like the world is bent on having a nuclear war, which beyond the boundaries of being ready for such an event, is false.

Why we won't have a nuclear war ? - The reasons have already been highlighted by the Colonel.

Yes, a nuke war once started is quite uncontrollable. No denying that. No-one has ever denied that. And that is the damn reason behind the NFU !

"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst forth at once in the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds."
Bhagavad Gita

What makes you think the other members here fancy a nuclear war ?

our masses are not properly educated about these issues.

Yes. And it shows quite transparently. When people start talking about India having Tactical nukes, there is some serious problem in the education.
How do you think, this can be brought to justice ?
The youth(apart from the ones flocking the forums) don't give a <beep> about any such issues. The only alternative might be to include it in the school course, which would make no sense, as they'll understand nothing. We'll just get hundreds of ignorant teachers telling the youth about "India's tactical nukes".

Russians, Chinese and Pakistanis dont have to worry about these issues cos theres is not a democracy. They can simply .......

Antimony has already covered this well enough.

 

[shaheen]

Sir,
India maintain no first use nuclear policy and also stated that "no use against a countery having no nuclear weapons'. What if any country use other form of WMD such as biological or chemical weapon against India? Should India still abstain from using nuclear weapon?

 

[Yusuf]

Sir,
India maintain no first use nuclear policy and also stated that "no use against a countery having no nuclear weapons'. What if any country use other form of WMD such as biological or chemical weapon against India? Should India still abstain from using nuclear weapon?

That is Chinas policy not Indias. India just has NFU. If India is attacked with any WMD, India reserves the right to respond with nukes. India is a signatory of CBW and so nukes are the only WMD we have.

 

[RPK]

May have to revisit nuclear no-first use policy: Army chief - India - NEWS - The Times of India

Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor may have opened a fresh discussion on India's nuclear posture and preparedness with his recent remarks that
if reports of Pakistan's expanded arsenal are correct, then New Delhi may well have to reconsider its strategic stance.

The Army chief's latest remarks with regard to a report by Federation of American Scientists which said the Pakistani arsenal could be as large as 70-90 warheads — he had earlier said if true this went beyond deterrence — has further spurred the debate in the strategic community.

Kapoor's implied suggestion that India could have to revisit its no-first use policy in case the strength of Pakistan’s nuclear was close to what had been claimed, will challenge a long held position. The need to think afresh is also linked to Pakistan deliberately blurring its red lines to maintain a nebulous doctrine.

Security expert Brahma Chellaney feels there there is need to review India’s “deterrence posture” while another analyst Bharat Karnad says no-first-use is not a substantive declaration. But they agree there is a need to plug gaps in India’s posture with regard to both Pakistan and China.

Though India’s doctrine has been touted as an indication of New Delhi’s peaceful intentions, Pakistan’s aggressive nuclearisation may mean that India needs to take a second look at its doctrine.

A number of eminent scientists in the past few weeks have made a case for India strengthening its nuclear capabilities and Kapoor’s remark that ‘‘India shall take a look at its stance’’ has added to the growing perception that the Indian nuclear arsenal needs refurbishing, if not the need to carry out more tests, to maintain its nuclear programme’s cutting edge.

The FAS claim is further buttressed by a report of the US Congressional Research Services, an independent bipartisan research wing of Congress, which has now said that Pakistan is not just making ‘‘qualitative and quantitative’’ improvement to its nuclear arsenal but has also added to the list of circumstances under which it would be willing to use them against India.

It said the number of warheads Pakistan had could be much more than the official figure of 60 and that this had been indicated to CRS by none other than the US government.

 

[Yusuf]

The statement by the General in effect means that we have to look at our own arsenel. We have already discussed that the strength of our arsenel doesn't allow for a first strike. So if we were to change our policy, then it will have to be matched with a substantial increase in indias arsenel both in quantity and quality. India will have to then change it's policy on keeping the nukes separate and have it mated with the delivery system and keep it on hair trigger alert. That on turn means we need a big increase in our missile inventory both in terms of quality and quantity. In short welcome to a new nuclear arms race.

 

[Yusuf]

Also I feel that there is no difference between Pakistan having 60 warheads or 90. it still is not a first strike capability. And first strike means taking out our own nukes and cripple our war making ability. Yes they can first strike our population centers but then they can do that with even 10 warheads.
What's important is the doctrine of Pakistan. If it were to strike first, what would it be? Cities with big population? It will not cripple indias capability to retaliate. No need to lose sleep over Pakistan increasing it's nukes from 60 to 90. Doesn't mean much. I would be worried if they have 900. Not now.

 

[mattster]

This kind of article in the Times of India is really distressing if you are an India supporter.

The article seems to be taking a passive reactive approach as opposed to be proactive.

Pakistanis will always talk peace and use the time to build up the capabilities and aggressive posture. Remember Kargil...even as Vajpayee was engaged in bus diplomacy, pakistani troops were consolidating their position on the Hills of Kargil. This is the same tactic that the Chinese use....while their diplomats say one thing but their military planners are busy establishing new missiles bases in Tibet to target India.

If India is not going all out to expand their nuclear arsenal and build more powerful systems, then she will deserve her fate when the Chinese use their tactical advantage to bully India or when the Pakistanis use their capabilties to create havoc in India.

If another 26/11 happens; there is nothing that India can do because of the threat of nuclear war. Its a stalemate and Pak know it.

 

[RPK]

The Hindu : National : Army clarifies comment

NEW DELHI: Having attracted criticism for Army Chief Deepak Kapoor’s response to a question on the ‘No-First Use’ nuclear policy, sources in the Army on Tuesday clarified that General Kapoor did not talk on the second strike capability policy.

The sources said that in response to a question on whether the country should review its ‘No-First Use’ policy in view of reports of Pakistan’s enhanced nuclear capabilities, all that General Kapoor said was: “That is something we will think and talk about once we have confirmed news that there has been an increase in the Pakistan nuclear arsenal.”

The sources said the Army Chief was clear that he would not like to draw any conclusion on the basis of media reports. His comments came in reply to questions about reports that Pakistan had 70 to 90 nuclear weapons.

General Kapoor had said that if these reports were correct that Pakistan was going beyond what was needed as a deterrent, this was a matter of concern for everyone. The sources refuted reports in a section of the media that the Army Chief was to visit Ladakh, following reports of cases of fresh incursions by Chinese troops in the area.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1543900.ece

External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna on Wednesday asserted that there would be no revision of India's no-first-use nuclear doctrine and said minimum credible deterrence would be maintained in view of threats and challenges.

In his hour-long reply to a debate on the Demands for Grants of his Ministry in the Lok Sabha, he said the government was working to improve relations with neighbours, including Pakistan and China, and countries such as the U.S. and Russia.

His reply covered various aspects of India's foreign policy. The Minister dismissed the notion that India was getting isolated or was a "by-stander" in world affairs, including the evolving situation in West Asia. The demands were later passed by a voice vote.

Responding to the points raised by senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader and former External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh, Mr. Krishna said the government remained committed to strengthening India's defence capabilities and maintaining credible minimum nuclear deterrence. His obvious reference was aimed at addressing the concern raised by some members over Pakistan's growing nuclear arsenal.

"On the nuclear doctrine, I would only like to say that there is no change in our policy. We are committed to universal, non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament and we remain firm on the commitment," Mr. Krishna said.

On ties with Pakistan, he said India was pursuing the path of dialogue to reduce the trust deficit and resolve all outstanding issues in a spirit of openness. He hoped that "we can build a better future for the peoples of both countries."

At the same time, he added, India has "never abandoned" its concern and the need to eliminate cross-border terrorism and to put an end to activities of terrorists and terror groups which have "negative and destructive agendas for our nation and which is not in the best interests of our relations."

In an oblique reference to Pakistan, Mr. Krishna said that those countries which provided space for terrorism to grow and space for terror camps to be set up were regretting what they had done as "there are explosions every day."

Referring to China, the Minister said India had conveyed its concerns over its practice of issuing stapled visas to people from Jammu and Kashmir and had got an assurance that Beijing would solve the problem to "our satisfaction."

Mr. Krishna said the government had accorded high priority to infrastructure development, including roads, on the India-China border as a "matter of strategic interest." He informed that the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) was constructing 61 roads with a total length of 3,429 km, covering States such as Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh.

In regard to the U.S, Mr. Krishna said India's relations were improving as part of the multi-sectoral strategic dialogue. The next round of Strategic Dialogue, to be held here next month, was postponed by two months because of certain "difficulties" on both sides.

He also dwelt on concerns over the fate of some Indian students duped by the Tri-Valley University in the United States. He said that India had asked the U.S. to ensure that such incidents were avoided in future.

Rejecting the contention that India was acting as an "opportunist" when it came to ties with Russia, Mr. Krishna asserted that relations with the time-tested friend continued to improve.

He also rejected the contention by some members that India was isolated in the global arena and in this context cited the support of 187 countries out of 190 for election to the U.N. Security Council as a non-permanent member last October.

Turning to the situation in West Asia, Mr. Krishna said that India had not been a "by-stander" as argued by some Opposition members. The situation in the region was fluid and India was making a careful assessment through consultations with its envoys there.

On Sri Lanka, Mr. Krishna said India favoured a united country, where legitimate aspirations of ethnic Tamils were taken care of. Referring to the incidents of some Tamil fishermen being killed in Sri Lankan waters, he said it had indeed caused concern.

This had been conveyed to Colombo with a message that such incidents need to be prevented, Mr. Krishna said. India also wanted Sri Lanka to provide ample security to the Indians visiting Katchathivu for annual pilgrimage, he said.

 

[Neil]

Did India Shift Nuclear Posture?

A number of analysts have suggested recently that India has shifted its nuclear doctrine away from a no first use policy.

The publicly released summary of India's 2003 official nuclear doctrine not only pledged there would be 'no first use' of nuclear weapons, but added an additional 'negative' security assurance of 'non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.'

However, last year, Indian National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon delivered a speech to the National Defence College that emphasized 'no first use against non-nuclear weapons states.'

Some analysts have interpreted this phrasing as a sharp departure from India's official 2003 doctrine. According to this interpretation, the qualification that India abides by a no first use policy against non-nuclear weapons states implies that it no longer adheres to a similar pledge against nuclear weapons states, including Pakistan and China. Indeed, several scholars from these two nations have raised this very issue with me, arguing that the formulation represents a doctrinal shift toward a nuclear warfighting—as opposed to a purely retaliatory—posture.

But there are two good reasons why this interpretation is likely wide of the mark. First, the new formulation isconsistent with India's declaratory policy: India has always had a no first use policy against non-nuclear weapons states. So the language is not ipso facto a departure from official policy.

Regardless, it's critical to remember that Menon didn't state that India had abandoned its no first use policy for any subset of states. Indeed, if India were now attempting to deter conventional conflict by a nuclear-armed adversary by implying there's a willingness to consider first use of its nuclear weapons, deterrence logic requires that it would have to make any such shift very public. After all, what good is a Doomsday device if no one knows you have it? Such a sharp shift in declaratory nuclear doctrine would, if it existed, therefore likely be more explicit than Menon's statement, and certainly not buried deep within the External Affairs Ministry website.

Second, given that the context around the speech largely emphasized the minimalist nature of India's nuclear doctrine, it seems unlikely that the national security advisor would at the same time be attempting to boldly change the core of India's nuclear doctrine through subtle reformulations.

So what prompted the statement that has caused such a fuss? The most plausible explanation is simply that the NDC formulation was the product of an innocent typographical error in the text of the speech. It's important to remember, after all, that the original 2003 clause was sometimes formulated as 'no use against non-nuclear weapons states. 'With this in mind, then, it seems likely that this was the point that Menon was reiterating and emphasizing to the NDC.

There's no question that India's nuclear capabilities are evolving, particularly with respect to delivery vehicles and command and control procedures. But the striking feature of India's nuclear posture has been the consistency with which it has adopted an assured retaliation orientation.

All the capabilities that India has developed over the past decade, and is seeking to develop in the future, are designed to bolster either the ability to retaliate against a range of key strategic targets in envisioned adversaries (e.g. the Agni III), or enhancing the assurance with which that retaliation would be meted out (e.g. the future SSBN). If anything, there has been increasing de-emphasizing of the short-range Prithvi family for nuclear missions—the delivery system most suitable for nuclear warfighting roles—in order to enhance crisis stability, focusing instead on systems with truly strategic capabilities such as the Agni family for deterrence. In short, India's core nuclear posture, which emphasizes nuclear retaliation following WMD use on India or its forces, seems to have largely persisted.

Although there are some within India who might like to see it (and many outside, particularly in China and Pakistan, who are afraid that it might) move toward a nuclear warfighting posture, there's no evidence that it's contemplating doing so.

And, as I said earlier, nuclear deterrence logic requires that any shift to a first use doctrine to deter conventional conflict by a nuclear-armed adversary must be transparent and publicly articulated. Any interpretation suggesting that India is moving toward a more aggressive nuclear doctrine based on parsing what's likely nothing more than an innocuous typographical error is almost certainly making much ado about nothing.


http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/DidIndiaChangeitsNuclearDoctrine_vnarang_010311

 

[hit&run]

Irrespective of the doctrine one must have capability to strike at whim. Striking a desired target is totally a different science and something which has less to do with how many underground tests you have done. I wouldn't challenge some expert if he or she may call nuclear strike capability of India, Pakistan and (may be) China a bluff. However i would always wish Indian army to be nuclear battle field and Indian cities nuclear war ready in near future.

 

[p2prada]

All these paper words are just that, words. When sh!t hits the fan all options are exercised.

 

[AOE]

I agree with p2prada, I think if Indias existence was threatened, then the probability of India using nukes reaches 1.