Reviewing India's Nuclear Doctrine

[Yusuf]

On the front page, I've written a piece on why we need to review India's nuclear doctrine

Indian Defence Analysis -

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

Bhai, we have to wait till a strong leader forms the central government at the center. So, we have to wait till May 16.......

 

[Bhadra]

On the front page, I've written a piece on why we need to review India's nuclear doctrine

Indian Defence Analysis -

That nicely sums up the problems in the current miliue and seeks relevent answers...

 

[Yusuf]

Got complimented by Air Marshall Anil Chopra for this piece!!

 

[Neo]

Got complimented by Air Marshall Anil Chopra for this piece!!

That's a great compliment, congrats!
You write well, always pleasure to read indeed.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Great article @Yusuf!

What do you think would be the right measure in case Pak uses nuclear deterrence in case of a conventional war? Although, you pointed out massive retaliation but in case if Pak is able to take out some of our big cities then it would not be very credible that India will resort to full scale nuclear escalation. So, is there a case for India to develop tactical nuclear weapons as well to selectively take out Pak military establishments?

 

[Yusuf]

Great article @Yusuf!

What do you think would be the right measure in case Pak uses nuclear deterrence in case of a conventional war? Although, you pointed out massive retaliation but in case if Pak is able to take out some of our big cities then it would not be very credible that India will resort to full scale nuclear escalation. So, is there a case for India to develop tactical nuclear weapons as well to selectively take out Pak military establishments?

I have touched on these points in my article.

1- Pakistan has started making battlefield nuclear weapons also known as tactical nuclear weapons. These weapons are aimed at stopping an armoured thrust into Pakistan by Indian Army in response to a terror attack like 26/11. Under current doctrine, it calls for a massive retaliation which means a counter value strike on its population center which will invite a similar strike by Pakistan on Indian cities. India will need to adopt a caliberated approach in this regard.

2- In the event of deterrence breakdown, look to quickly terminate the nuclear exchange. While India may be in a position to impose unacceptable damage on the enemy, but any crippling strike that takes out India's major population centers will set India back in a major way with implications that may last well beyond the nuke exchange and affect the very foundation of the country with respect to its unity, integrity and sovereignty.

What we have to keep in mind is Indian nukes are are not Pakistan centric while Pak nukes are India centric. India has China to deter and as we grow in economy and military size, we will make more enemies along or other forms of unconventional threats may arise.

So our arsenal has to be credible against any adversary not Pakistan alone.

As I wrote to in response to a question raised by @Virendra on Facebook,


I think the enemy should be made aware that we can inflict unacceptable damage but in an event of deterrence breakdown, response has to be calibrated IMO. No wiping out Glassing them stuff as we will also face the brunt of enemy counter strikes.

Just let the enemy know if they want it, they will get it.

 

[Yusuf]

Guys tweet this article please tagging relevant people. As they look to review, they should get public opinion and input IMHO

Tag me as well when you do @YusufDFI

 

[Bheeshma]

Good job. Wish the next govt would pay attention.

 

[no smoking]

I suggest you to back and do some reserch on why India adopt no first use doctrine from the beginning.
If you don't understand the circumstance of this doctrine, then how do you know it is time to revise it.

 

[Yusuf]

I suggest you to back and do some reserch on why India adopt no first use doctrine from the beginning.
If you don't understand the circumstance of this doctrine, then how do you know it is time to revise it.

Did you even read the article?

 

[no smoking]

Did you even read the article?

Yes, I did. As I said, you didn't figure out why India adopted the NFU policy in first place even though you quote lots peoples words. In order to understand that, you need to check the india's budget, diplomatic environment, strategic balance and nuclear technologies at the time.

Think it this way:
1. Why Chinese declared its NFU policy as soon as its nuclear test succeeded?
2. Why Chinese didn't terminate this policy even when Russia threated her with a nuclear war?
3. Why Chinese still stick to this policy when she is investing heavely in the military forces?
4. Why all of P5 are not increasing their war heads but enforcing their delivery vehicles?
5. Why India didn't continune its nuclear test in the past 20 years?

 

[Yusuf]

I quoted a couple of ppl from the US who commented on BJPs decision to review. I had to put things in perspective.

I gave a heads up for lay people on India's nuke doctrine that started with Gen Sundarji. He explained why India should adopt NFU. You didn't get it.

 

[no smoking]

I quoted a couple of ppl from the US who commented on BJPs decision to review. I had to put things in perspective.

I gave a heads up for lay people on India's nuke doctrine that started with Gen Sundarji. He explained why India should adopt NFU. You didn't get it.

You still don't get. He didn't really explain the reason why india should adopt NFU. He just gave the subjective opinion about India's NFU instead of the OBJECTIVE ENVIRONMENT behind this strategy.

For example:

1. the level of the nuclear threat around india doesn't requires first use policy: neither Pak nor China has the capability to initiate a nuclear war with a hope to win.
2. India doesn't have the money and resource to build the neccesary scale of nuclear force to support the first use policy.
3. Without thermonuclear weapon, first use policy is useless for anyone in a nuclear war. But in order to develop the thermonuclear tech, India need at least one more test which will bring great political pressure. India doesn't want that.

etc.

 

[Yusuf]

You still don't get. He didn't really explain the reason why india should adopt NFU. He just gave the subjective opinion about India's NFU instead of the OBJECTIVE ENVIRONMENT behind this strategy.

For example:

1. the level of the nuclear threat around india doesn't requires first use policy: neither Pak nor China has the capability to initiate a nuclear war with a hope to win.
2. India doesn't have the money and resource to build the neccesary scale of nuclear force to support the first use policy.
3. Without thermonuclear weapon, first use policy is useless for anyone in a nuclear war. But in order to develop the thermonuclear tech, India need at least one more test which will bring great political pressure. India doesn't want that.

etc.

More is not required when less is enough. Nukes to deter a nuclear attack on India. That's it. We didn't wand to be the aggressor. We are pacifist people.

 

[CCP]

That's it. We didn't wand to be the aggressor. We are pacifist people.

China is the same, at least we are peaceful with India for now and in the foreseeable future.

PS.nice article.

 

[no smoking]

More is not required when less is enough.

I would say:"More is too much and less is not enough".

Nukes to deter a nuclear attack on India.

Oh, please, unlike China, India was never threatened by a nuclear attack. The only reason you pursue it is because you want to play as a big power. And your leaders believe that nuclear weapon is a necessary condition of being a power.

It is a political weapon to India. That is also why India didn't continue the nuclear test.

We didn't wand to be the aggressor. We are pacifist people.

Yes, every country says so.

 

[Yusuf]

I would say:"More is too much and less is not enough".



Oh, please, unlike China, India was never threatened by a nuclear attack. The only reason you pursue it is because you want to play as a big power. And your leaders believe that nuclear weapon is a necessary condition of being a power.

It is a political weapon to India. That is also why India didn't continue the nuclear test.



Yes, every country says so.

Yeah right, 62 China attacks India & in 64 it tests its first nuke. Yeah India had nothing to fear.

That apart its beyond you to understand Gen Sundarji.

 

[Glint]

I would say:"More is too much and less is not enough".



Oh, please, unlike China, India was never threatened by a nuclear attack. The only reason you pursue it is because you want to play as a big power. And your leaders believe that nuclear weapon is a necessary condition of being a power.

It is a political weapon to India. That is also why India didn't continue the nuclear test.



Yes, every country says so.

Within just 2 years of the Sino-India war, China develops Nuclear weapons and tests it.

A country like Pakistan with constant interference since 47.

India might be peaceful but certainly they are not stupid. There was a big reason behind India accruing the nukes.

India didn't continue tests because mostly for the sanctions and many countries like United states uses simulators to determine nuclear tests success.
As far as i know India could be doing the same.

And you still believe India doesn't need nukes? We are not naive.

Please checks the facts before writing something about a country

 

[Immanuel]

Nice article, however one small correction, to say Pakiatni Arsenal has surpassed India's is incorrect to the say the least. Indian numbers have always been top secret and no one has a true idea how many we have, by all fair and true estimates of both warhead & Ballistic Missile production rates we can have well over 200 warheads by now.