Deception of nuclear ‘no first use’

[Martian2]

Thanks bro. How about Pakistan? I suggest we check NTI for consistent comparison.

NTI says Pakistan has 2.1 megatons.

Nuclear Disarmament Pakistan | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI

----------

NTI says India has one megaton.

Nuclear Disarmament India | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI

 

[SQ8]

If only Pakistan could punch in it's own weight class life would have been so much easier for everyone but no it has to constantly be a maverick, do things none expected nor was logically possible with the resources it had.

It is this Icarus like nature of Pakistan which makes it so dangerous and instils fear and loathing in India which has been an habitual underachiever.

@Oscar - Have you ever stopped to consider what drives the core Indian psychology with respect to Pakistan which is reflected in all it's doctrines? It is vary sense of admiration mixed with envy and gloating at the same time. We would like Pakistan to be our Nepal or it's errant cousin Sri-Lanka but refuses to oblige us.

Now as for NFU or FU - these are strategic mind-games, India retains the option for all out nuclear retaliation in event of Nuclear attack on it's assets irrespective of the degree of attack which makes it inevitable that Pakistan would like it's first punch to knock India down, India knows this and in this age of global satellite coverage it would never let Pakistan land it's first punch resulting in invalidation of NFU.

But in deterrence sphere it works beautifully to discourage the use of tactical weapons as Pakistan knows the cost will be too high and unless it is ready to use the strategic nukes and risk annihilation it might as well grin and bear it.

So you see NFU serves its purpose of maintaining peace and at the same time leaving option open for limited skirmishes for balancing purposes but when push comes to serve it is just a voluntary declaration not worth the piece of paper it is written on.

Regards

That punching above the weight class is a legacy left oddly by our founding father or rather the mythology surrounding him. His brilliant lawyer-like political machinations and tactics turned the generally discounted Muslim league into the force that would lead to a division of India(with the British conniving at the end through Nehru). That concept of a massive free United India that the Congress held so dear was suddenly in tatters.
On the other hand, that myth of a divine struggle for Pakistan and its achievement against impossible odds(which while difficult were not really insurmountable due to the numbers game and people mobilization) drives that cockiness to punch above one's weight. It is both a massive plus for Pakistani psyche and a drawback as it tends to lead to a very volatile morale. One that oscillates between "Bring it on" and "We are doomed".

As for the ambiguous NFU; at the end it is just words and rhetoric for most since the decision to deploy has to do with strategic red lines and less to do with principles.

 

[911]

India has NFU policy only against non nuclear states.

Even with satellite monitoring, in a war situation between very close neighbours it will be hard to detect whether the warhead is nuclear in a short time. And does after detection of nuclear warhead in air before it explodes, an indication of nuclear attack? Or after it explodes?

 

[Shotgunner51]

NTI says Pakistan has 2.1 megatons.

Nuclear Disarmament Pakistan | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI

----------

NTI says India has one megaton.

Nuclear Disarmament India | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI

Thanks for providing the citations!

Given the size of thermonuclear stockpile in the league between Russia, US and China, mutually assured destruction is the stabilizing doctrine. Backed by second strike capability, NFU policy is practical.

However in the case of Pakistan, India and North Korea, the stockpiles are far too small for significant damage let alone assured destruction, so how does that influence on their NFU/FU policy?

 

[Martian2]

Thanks for providing the citations!

Given the size of thermonuclear stockpile in the league between Russia, US and China, mutually assured destruction is the stabilizing doctrine. Backed by second strike capability, NFU policy is practical.

However in the case of Pakistan, India and North Korea, the stockpiles are far too small for assured destruction, how does that influence on their NFU/FU policy?

The atomic weapons of Pakistan, India, and North Korea are irrelevant. They don't do enough damage.

International law is determined by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. In reality, there are only three permanent members that count.

Pakistan and North Korea are in China's camp. India is in the US camp.

The strategic decisions will be made between China and the US. China will protect Pakistani and North Korean interests within reason. The US will protect Indian interests within reason.

It doesn't matter how many megatons that India has. China's thermonuclear arsenal is far more mature by decades. China will circumscribe Indian options.

China is a status quo power. The United States has always been comfortable with China and relations have been stable for decades. China will not do anything rash with regard to India. Hence, the posturing between India and Pakistan on the issue of NFU/FU is not the final word. China and the US will affect the use or non-use of Pakistan's and India's atomic arsenals. The threat of withdrawal of military and political protection will deter the use of atomic weapons.

 

[aazar]

"The Indian draft of the nuclear doctrine of 1999 advocated first use of nuclear weapons against countries allied to nuclear states. It will not be a coincidence if India abandons its NFU commitment against Pakistan and China in the near future." I am bit hesitant as NFU is the only narrative India sells and gets west's sympathies.

 

[SrNair]

Thanks for providing the citations!

Given the size of thermonuclear stockpile in the league between Russia, US and China, mutually assured destruction is the stabilizing doctrine. Backed by second strike capability, NFU policy is practical.

However in the case of Pakistan, India and North Korea, the stockpiles are far too small for significant damage let alone assured destruction, so how does that influence on their NFU/FU policy?

Noone ,not even US or UN dont know anything about Indian nuke programs .According to them it is totally opaque than even the Chinese .Still they are trying a lots but no use .
You dont know the real capacity of our nukes .

The atomic weapons of Pakistan, India, and North Korea are irrelevant. They don't do enough damage.

International law is determined by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. In reality, there are only three permanent members that count.

Pakistan and North Korea are in China's camp. India is in the US camp.

The strategic decisions will be made between China and the US. China will protect Pakistani and North Korean interests within reason. The US will protect Indian interests within reason.

It doesn't matter how many megatons that India has. China's thermonuclear arsenal is far more mature by decades. China will circumscribe Indian options.

China is a status quo power. The United States has always been comfortable with China and relations have been stable for decades. China will not do anything rash with regard to India. Hence, the posturing between India and Pakistan on the issue of NFU/FU is not the final word. China and the US will affect the use or non-use of Pakistan's and India's atomic arsenals. The threat of withdrawal of military and political protection will deter the use of atomic weapons.

Noone in the world cant understand the real stand of Indian nuke program .Because our policy and design is so unique .
There is a lot of black programs happening in this nation in different top secret sites .
World only knows if we volunteerily reveal our nuke natures and advancement .Otherwise it will remain as another mystery .

In fact once our DRDO chief mentioned about our megaton TNU warheads .But he didnt completely explain it because it is still a top secret.

 

[Shotgunner51]

Noone ,not even US or UN dont know anything about Indian nuke programs .According to them it is totally opaque than even the Chinese .Still they are trying a lots but no use .
You dont know the real capacity of our nukes .

I agree with your view, none of us would know, these info should be are highly classified info even inside India. So for the time being we have no choice but to rely on expert estimates, and NTI should probably be among few credible sources we can use.

 

[SrNair]

I agree with your view, none of us would know, these info should be are highly classified info even inside India. So for the time being we have no choice but to rely on expert estimates, and NTI should probably be among few credible sources we can use.

According to Americans there is 'zero accountability' , noone interested to talk about it .

 

[Shotgunner51]

According to Americans there is 'zero accountability' , noone interested to talk about it .

Is it? Sure it's a merit to stay critical to expert opinions and estimates in absence of actual classified info. I check their background (extract below), for me so far the team is quite convincing, so for the time being I will use this as reference. But of course we should always welcome other sources.

About | NTI

"The Nuclear Threat Initiative is a role model for me of a private-public partnership in issues of security and of survival... NTI has been a trailblazer." Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace Prize winner and former IAEA director-general"

Founders Ted Turner and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn serve as co-chairs of the board of directors, which includes prestigious international membership.

The organization’s activities are directed by Nunn and President Joan Rohlfing and informed by the advisors to the board of directors, who are leading figures in science, business, and international security.

Over the past ten years, NTI has received funding from individual American philanthropists, including Warren Buffett, Fred Iseman, Peter G. Peterson, George Russell, and Ted Turner. We have also received significant support from foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Skoll Global Threats Fund and the Google Foundation.

For leadership and staff check this Leadership & Staff | About NTI | NTI
​

 

[Capt.Popeye]

As far as I know what my research says it's simple Pakistan would try to do best in conventional war but if things go wrong in conventional war than GOD bless India because we are not going to.

What on earth has God gotta do with all this?? Defence and Offence depends simply on Bombs, Missiles, Troops, Doctrines and most of all on Economic Clout, though Diplomatic Clout helps some-what.
Very little that Mr.God can do in all this.

Bonsai it may be, but when it comes to the overall stability of the state it is was earlier and is still today to an extent tied to the military's strength. However, the policy of FU or NFU in this case has little to do with the strength of the state and more to do with the military's gauging of its capability in defending the frontiers.

Considering the rather long drawn out(and clearly stagnant) fascination the hawks in India's leadership(regardless of who is in power) has with the foundations laid out by I.Gandhi on a "lasting lesson" and the general superiority in the desert it enjoys have made it a requirement. This fear keeps propagating on its own(in part thanks to a very jingoistic Indian media) and allows the justification of a FU regardless of whether in terms of operational preparedness and realism it will ever come to bear.


No, all it means is that the region is closer to nuclear warfare than we thought. Only a jingoistic mindset would derive any superiority in nuclear weapons deployment capability from it.

That is what I meant by "Bonsai State", when the State functions at such a high-level of paranoia about itself and its existence; that it feels driven to speak about Armageddon at the slightest opportunity (even if unjustified). While the Cold-Warriors displayed similar "Bonsai" tendencies earlier, even as much more powerful entities.

As for the "hawks" in India; both in the time of I.G. and after....... have discovered this weakness that exists in their adversary, and will miss no chance to ratchet up the paranoid fears that plague the Strategic Estt. across the border. Remember, even this is a tactic of warfare; and war now is not waged only by bombs and guns. Thus the adversary has simply played in to the hands of the "hawks".

 

[oprih]

About ten years ago, NTI (ie. Nuclear Threat Initiative) said the Chinese thermonuclear arsenal was 294 megatons. Obviously, China has built a lot more thermonuclear weapons over the last ten years (e.g. DF-31, DF-31A, JL-2, DF-5B, and DF-41).

Prior to the reductions in the New START treaty, NTI estimated the Russian thermonuclear arsenal between 600 to 1,200 megatons.

The US thermonuclear arsenal was estimated at 570 megatons.

However, the US SIOP plan calls for a simultaneous strike on Russia and China. This means the US only has 285 megatons to hit China.

NTI estimated the Indian atomic arsenal at one megaton.
----------

Here are the new NTI thermonuclear links:

Nuclear Disarmament Russia | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI
Nuclear Disarmament China | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI
Nuclear Disarmament United States | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI

Here is the NTI atomic link:

Nuclear Disarmament India | Articles | NTI Analysis | NTI

India only has one megaton woah they keep on acting big yet that is all they have.

 

[SQ8]

As for the "hawks" in India; both in the time of I.G. and after....... have discovered this weakness that exists in their adversary, and will miss no chance to ratchet up the paranoid fears that plague the Strategic Estt. across the border. Remember, even this is a tactic of warfare; and war now is not waged only by bombs and guns. Thus the adversary has simply played in to the hands of the "hawks".

However, the Hawks cry of wolf has also led to situations where the Indian populous has started to question whether the Indian military is actually capable of anything or just hot air. Firing a few thousand rounds out of the mortar stocks may rattle the average Ranger but at the end has the rest of the force looking across thinking "Is that the best they can do", which makes them even bolder at poking a stick.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

It seems like no coincidence that days after Barkha Dutt revealed the Indian side in her book, Riedel revealed his side. When Sandy Berger’s obituary surfaced, international and Indian media outlets went berserk taking snipes at Pakistan. Bruce’s spark spurred the media into action on how Pakistan was ready to use nuclear weapons during the Kargil War, which is far from the truth.


According to Barkha Dutt, President Clinton sent Anthony Zinni, the commander-in-chief of the US central command, to Pakistan. There, Zinni warned General Musharaf to pull back troops, otherwise nuclear annihilation would be perpetrated against Pakistan by India. All the way India had been threatening Pakistan with use of nuclear weapons. If what Datt says is true - which we believe it is - then India and its apologists are lying through their teeth in efforts to make others believe that India has a policy of no first use (NFU).


. If India were such a great proponent of NFU, it would not have doubted the Chinese NFU pledge.




When India revised its nuclear doctrine in 2002 there was pressure building up by many hawks within the National Security Advisory Board for the abandonment of NFU by the Indian government. The board, headed by C V Ranganathan, recommended that “India must consider withdrawing from this commitment as the other nuclear weapons’ states have not accepted this policy.”


The Indian draft of the nuclear doctrine of 1999 advocated first use of nuclear weapons against countries allied to nuclear states. It will not be a coincidence if India abandons its NFU commitment against Pakistan and China in the near future. Contrary to the Indian NFU policy, some analysts are contemplating an alarming shift in Indian strategic thinking from a strict NFU policy.

Very very flawed article.

It is really stupid to take the words of an well known paid journalist book as a source. She was exposed by Radia Tapes controversy. There is no way an journo can access to sensitive policies of GoI.
Complete lies.

Secondly India and China have strictly NFU, not to please western countries. Cos that's fair. Or else it will be equal to bully nearby small countries with Nuke weapons.
Even if Pakistan invades Delhi, we wont be using Nukes.

Thirdly just cos an official recommended against NFU, there is no proof to indicate govt accepted his stand.

 

[SrNair]

Is it? Sure it's a merit to stay critical to expert opinions and estimates in absence of actual classified info. I check their background (extract below), for me so far the team is quite convincing, so for the time being I will use this as reference. But of course we should always welcome other sources.

About | NTI

"The Nuclear Threat Initiative is a role model for me of a private-public partnership in issues of security and of survival... NTI has been a trailblazer." Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace Prize winner and former IAEA director-general"

Founders Ted Turner and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn serve as co-chairs of the board of directors, which includes prestigious international membership.

The organization’s activities are directed by Nunn and President Joan Rohlfing and informed by the advisors to the board of directors, who are leading figures in science, business, and international security.

Over the past ten years, NTI has received funding from individual American philanthropists, including Warren Buffett, Fred Iseman, Peter G. Peterson, George Russell, and Ted Turner. We have also received significant support from foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Skoll Global Threats Fund and the Google Foundation.

For leadership and staff check this Leadership & Staff | About NTI | NTI
​

Still they are using satellite info for watching our development.And you knows our capability in space tech .GoI and their scientists know the merit and demerits , each and everything of satellite surveilliance .And we also know how to maintain it as an opaque .