India could strike Pakistan with nuclear weapons first to pre-empt attack

[CriticalThinker02]

There is increasing evidence that India could launch a preemptive first strike against Pakistan if it feared a nuclear attack was imminent, in a marked reversal of its well-known no-first use policy, according to a leading nuclear strategist.

But this first strike will not be aimed at urban centres and conventional targets of a retaliatory strike intended to punish and prevent an escalation, but against Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal, to preempt a nuclear attack altogether.

“There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first,” Vipin Narang, a nuclear strategist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said at a conference on nuclear policy hosted by Carnegie, a think tank, on Monday.

“India’s opening salvo may not be conventional strikes trying to pick off just Nasr batteries (launch vehicles for Pakistan’s tactical battlefield nuclear warheads) in the theatre, but a full ‘comprehensive counterforce strike’ that attempts to completely disarm Pakistan of its nuclear weapons so that India does not have to engage in iterative tit-for-tat exchanges and expose its own cities to nuclear destruction,” he said. Comprehensive counterforce is an informal phrase used to describe counterattack on a nuclear arsenal.

Relations between the neighbours are at the lowest since a string of militant attacks on Indian military installations which New Delhi blames on Pakistan-based militants. India last year claimed to have carried out surgical strikes against militant launch pads in Azad Kashmir but Islamabad denied any such operation took place.

In February, both countries extended a bilateral pact, dealing with reducing the risk of nuclear weapon-related accidents including a war, for a period of five years. India and Pakistan have fought three full-fledged wars besides the 1999 Kargil hostilities.

As evidence for his theory, Narang cited recent remarks and policy prescriptions from leading Indian strategists and a book by Shivshankar Menon, who oversaw nuclear targeting for India as National Security Adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Narang also quoted Menon as telling Ajai Shukla, a defense analyst with Business Standard, that “India’s nuclear doctrine has far greater flexibility than it gets credit for”.

To buttress his theory, Narang cited this para from Menon’s book, “Choices: Inside the Making of Indian Foreign Policy”, which was released in November 2016 but has found a new celebrity recently, to build his case: “There is a potential gray area as to when India would use nuclear weapons first against another NWS (nuclear weapon state). Circumstances are conceivable in which India might find it useful to strike first, for instance, against an NWS that had declared it would certainly use its weapons, and if India were certain that adversary’s launch was imminent.”

New Delhi declared its no-first use strike policy in 2003, undertaking to not start a nuclear war in a neighborhood packed with nuclear actors Pakistan and its hermetically stoic backer China, countries that had fought wars with India.

But it set aside some key exceptions, gray areas, such as reserving the right to strike first if it came under biological or chemical attack, that may have left the door open, for arguments sake, to a latter day switch to a more aggressive stand.

Under its earlier policy India had hoped to use the threat of “massive counter-value retaliation” — read civilian targets such as urban populations mostly — disproportionate in intensity to the attack, as a disincentive for a nuclear attack against it.

But as Pakistan, which has the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenal, segued to smaller battlefield nuclear weapons, called tactical weapons, to offset Indian superiority in conventional warfare, New Delhi was forced to rethink its choices.

There are also worries in India that New Delhi might not have full information on the whereabouts of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and tactical warheads that are much smaller and mounted on lorries to be driven around to escape detection through satellite imagery.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...says-expert/story-P5N8QuKOldxAJ9UPjboijM.html

 

[Hassan Guy]

Oh Im sure that will end brilliantly won't it?

 

[IceCold]

I don't know what so special or different about this report that we don't know already. The no first use is just a hogwash or at best against a non nuclear country. US did not even spare a non nuclear Japan. So chances of India using nukes on Pakistan in a preemptive strike is far more real than Pakistan doing it and it makes sense for them as we'll since Pakistan lacks strategic depth to absorb a first strike and yet have sufficient resources to hit back. Second Pakistan does not posses a credible 2nd strike capability.
Ideally Pakistan to some extent has started addressing the second point with an SLCM however its still in its infancy. What we need is a full spectrum nuclear capability with an assured second strike capability. For that purpose we need a nuclear sub with an SLBM capability so that even if all Pakistani land assets are destroyed we can still take out India with our second strike capability.

 

[AnshPunj2016]

Every freakin guy here thinks he knows everything and others are lying. No one is ready for a real debate and just try to blast on each other. Be it the Indian side of our brothers or the Pakistani side of our brothers.

 

[kabooter_maila]

A leading nuclear strategist Vipin Narang said yesterday, at a conference on nuclear policy, that there is increasing evidence that India could launch a preemptive first strike against Pakistan if it feared a nuclear attack was imminent.

“There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first,” Vipin Narang, a nuclear strategist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said at a conference on nuclear policy hosted by Carnegie, a think tank, yesterday.

He added that the first strike will not be aimed at urban centres and conventional targets of a retaliatory strike intended to punish and prevent an escalation, but against Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal, to preempt a nuclear attack altogether.

“India’s opening salvo may not be conventional strikes trying to pick off just Nasr batteries (launch vehicles for Pakistan’s tactical battlefield nuclear warheads) in the theatre, but a full ‘comprehensive counterforce strike’ that attempts to completely disarm Pakistan of its nuclear weapons so that India does not have to engage in iterative tit-for-tat exchanges and expose its own cities to nuclear destruction,” he said.

As evidence for his theory, Narang cited recent remarks and policy prescriptions from leading Indian strategists and a book by Shivshankar Menon, who oversaw nuclear targeting for India as National Security Adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Narang also quoted Menon as telling Ajai Shukla, a defense analyst with Business Standard, that “India’s nuclear doctrine has far greater flexibility than it gets credit for”.

Narang supported his theory by citing this paragraph from Menon’s book, “Choices: Inside the Making of Indian Foreign Policy”, which was released in November : “There is a potential grey area as to when India would use nuclear weapons first against another NWS (nuclear weapon state). Circumstances are conceivable in which India might find it useful to strike first, for instance, against an NWS that had declared it would certainly use its weapons, and if India were certain that adversary’s launch was imminent.”

New Delhi declared its no-first use strike policy in 2003, undertaking to not start a nuclear war in a neighbourhood.

Times of India released a report today in which it said there are also worries in India that New Delhi might not have full information on the whereabouts of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and tactical warheads that are much smaller and mounted on lorries to be driven around to escape detection through satellite imagery.
http://nation.com.pk/national/21-Ma...st-to-pre-empt-attack-says-nuclear-strategist

First of all, who in hell really believed in hoax Indian doctrine of no-first-use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan. That’s why Pakistan is trying its upmost to get a credible and massive second strike capability. Second, how can Indians succeed in neutralizing all Pakistani nuclear weapons? That is another grave miscalculation that is emerging out of Indian self-deception. They have previously fallen trapped by a similar miscalculation regarding their imaginary cold start war doctrine, which achieved them nothing despite spending tens of billions of dollars. If Indians believe that Pakistan Nasr can be knocked down by pre-emptive strikes at a couple of cantonments (the places that a pseudo Indian scholar have recently ‘revealed’) , that would be a suicidal move by India. These nasty Indians believe that Pakistanis might have mastered some of the most difficult technologies (uranium reprocessing, design and development of advanced nukes, extremely advanced missiles, etc. ) but they don’t know how to protect and effectively use their weapons. I haven't seen any nation in recent history that has been struggling so badly (and madly) as Indians who are willingly indulging in self-deception knowing the reality fully well. Indians are suffering from an extreme and deep denial state.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The point of nuclear weapons, especially against another nuclear power, is to use them before the other one gets a chance to use theirs. No point going second in a nuclear exchange, there is no second. Only the losers spot.

The point of Nuclear Weapons is exactly the opposite.
It is to not use them.

 

[foxtrot1]

in case of war India cannot risk to get hit first. Most of Pak's cruise Missile carry nuclear warhead so any cruise missile launched towards India could be assumed as nuclear strike and India may launch it's own retaliation.

 

[NakedLunch]

The point of Nuclear Weapons is exactly the opposite.
It is to not use them.

But if you have to then be the first one.

 

[Flying Man]

First of all, who in hell really believed in hoax Indian doctrine of no-first-use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan. That’s why Pakistan is trying its upmost to get a credible and massive second strike capability. Second, how can Indians succeed in neutralizing all Pakistani nuclear weapons? That is another grave miscalculation that is emerging out of Indian self-deception. They have previously fallen trapped by a similar miscalculation regarding their imaginary cold start war doctrine, which achieved them nothing despite spending tens of billions of dollars. If Indians believe that Pakistan Nasr can be knocked down by pre-emptive strikes at a couple of cantonments (the places that a pseudo Indian scholar have recently ‘revealed’) , that would be a suicidal move by India. These nasty Indians believe that Pakistanis might have mastered some of the most difficult technologies (uranium reprocessing, design and development of advanced nukes, extremely advanced missiles, etc. ) but they don’t know how to protect and effectively use their weapons. I haven't seen any nation in recent history that has been struggling so badly (and madly) as Indians who are willingly indulging in self-deception knowing the reality fully well. Indians are suffering from an extreme and deep denial state.

First of all, who in hell really believed in hoax Indian doctrine of no-first-use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan. That’s why Pakistan is trying its upmost to get a credible and massive second strike capability. Second, how can Indians succeed in neutralizing all Pakistani nuclear weapons? That is another grave miscalculation that is emerging out of Indian self-deception. They have previously fallen trapped by a similar miscalculation regarding their imaginary cold start war doctrine, which achieved them nothing despite spending tens of billions of dollars. If Indians believe that Pakistan Nasr can be knocked down by pre-emptive strikes at a couple of cantonments (the places that a pseudo Indian scholar have recently ‘revealed’) , that would be a suicidal move by India. These nasty Indians believe that Pakistanis might have mastered some of the most difficult technologies (uranium reprocessing, design and development of advanced nukes, extremely advanced missiles, etc. ) but they don’t know how to protect and effectively use their weapons. I haven't seen any nation in recent history that has been struggling so badly (and madly) as Indians who are willingly indulging in self-deception knowing the reality fully well. Indians are suffering from an extreme and deep denial state.

"That is another grave miscalculation that is emerging out of Indian self-deception"
INDIAS calculation where always right. You knows it better than any other country.

 

[Mustang06]

Nukes are a deterrence against any misadventure from either nation. A nuclear exchange will do no good to either Pakistan or India.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

But if you have to then be the first one.

I doubt either India or Pakistan can damage the other party enough, that the response
will not hurt making the first striker regret its actions.

 

[Verve]

'No first use' mantra by Hindus is dead and buried ...

 

[NakedLunch]

I doubt either India or Pakistan can damage the other party enough, that the response
will not hurt making the first striker regret its actions.

As things stand now, yes. But a few more megatons on either side and who goes first will make a big difference. Nuclear weapons have their uses. Two of them ended the Second World War in the East. Humans will use even these weapons. There is historical precedence.

 

[Indian wonk]

I quote from previous Vipin Narang article

" On 21 October 2010, India’s National Security Advisor, Shivshankar Menon, gave a speech to the National Defence College in which the text employs the formulation that India’s nuclear doctrine emphasizes “no first use against non-nuclear weapons states "

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/DidIndiaChangeitsNuclearDoctrine_vnarang_010311#footnote2_7e69x16

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

As things stand now, yes. But a few more megatons on either side and who goes first will make a big difference. Nuclear weapons have their uses. Two of them ended the Second World War in the East. Humans will use even these weapons. There is historical precedence.

To use Nuclear Weapons in a Pak-India conflict would be political suicide.