India should revisit her NO FIRST USE policy

[misterme2]

Don;t declare, don;t talk, don't write NOTHING...........Silence is golden.....it leaves all options on the table...

 

[JustForFun]

Nukes are worth nothing in a war between nuclear powers. Having a FU policy is just bluff and the other side knows that.

In a brutal conventional war even if you are havily defeated, chances are over 90% of your polulation will survive. Are you willing to sacrify those 90% of you population just because you lost a war?

The awnser to that question is why NFU is a better policy.

 

[Vishnu Nagadevara]

India Will use her Nukes when we feel most threatened by the USA or Anyone!

 

[LiberalAtheist]

keeping NFU is important however i agree some revisions need to be done my view would be that

no first use against non nuclear weapons states however non nuclear weapons states attack on India with any kind of WMD will issue the "Massive response"

and as for nuclear weapons states no first use unless information relating to a first strike on India is received or if Indian territory/nation is at risk then nuclear force will be required

and we should not hesitate to use nukes first against belligerent territorial expansionists

 

[JustForFun]

keeping NFU is important however i agree some revisions need to be done my view would be that

no first use against non nuclear weapons states however non nuclear weapons states attack on India with any kind of WMD will issue the "Massive response"

and as for nuclear weapons states no first use unless information relating to a first strike on India is received or if Indian territory/nation is at risk then nuclear force will be required

and we should not hesitate to use nukes first against belligerent territorial expansionists

You will hesitate and you won't use it.
As long as there is something left worth living for you won't end your life and a billion+ people with you.
Politicians are liars and hypocrites, but they are not stupid.
Nukes are just for MAD, nothing more nothing less.

 

[LiberalAtheist]

You will hesitate and you won't use it.
As long as there is something left worth living for you won't end your life and a billion+ people with you.
Politicians are liars and hypocrites, but they are not stupid.
Nukes are just for MAD, nothing more nothing less.

our nuclear weapons are simply for deterrence not black mail or anything else should deterrence fail then it will be a tragedy we won't nuke anyone unless they attack Indian civilians or our forces with any kind of WMD

 

[JustForFun]

our nuclear weapons are simply for deterrence not black mail or anything else should deterrence fail then it will be a tragedy we won't nuke anyone unless they attack Indian civilians or our forces with any kind of WMD

This is something entirely different than:

and we should not hesitate to use nukes first against belligerent territorial expansionists

 

[LiberalAtheist]

This is something entirely different than:

and we should not hesitate to use nukes first against belligerent territorial expansionists

by this i mean should deterrence fail and if an enemy (nuclear weapons state)has taken a good part of Indian territory under control then use of nuclear weapons first should be considered.

 

[JustForFun]

by this i mean should deterrence fail and if an enemy (nuclear weapons state)has taken a good part of Indian territory under control then use of nuclear weapons first should be considered.

In that case see reply #32 and #35.
You can consider it, but you won't sacrify your whole population just because you lost some territory. You won't even do it if you loose all your territory.
Just think about it, are the lifes of you family and relatives worth nothing if your country would loose some land? Are they better of dead if the city they live in is to be captured by the enemy?

More sinister: Can you plot your revenge if you're dead?

 

[LiberalAtheist]

In that case see reply #32 and #35.
You can consider it, but you won't sacrify your whole population just because you lost some territory. You won't even do it if you loose all your territory.
Just think about it, are the lifes of you family and relatives worth nothing if your country would loose some land? Are they better of dead if the city they live in is to be captured by the enemy?

More sinister: Can you plot your revenge if you're dead?

India would never launch its nukes first unless of course they are hit by a first strike from an enemy nation the entire Indian nuclear weapons are not for bullying or black mailing rather simple minimum credible deterrence

 

[JustForFun]

and we should not hesitate to use nukes first against belligerent territorial expansionists

our nuclear weapons are simply for deterrence not black mail or anything else should deterrence fail then it will be a tragedy we won't nuke anyone unless they attack Indian civilians or our forces with any kind of WMD

by this i mean should deterrence fail and if an enemy (nuclear weapons state)has taken a good part of Indian territory under control then use of nuclear weapons first should be considered.

India would never launch its nukes first unless of course they are hit by a first strike from an enemy nation the entire Indian nuclear weapons are not for bullying or black mailing rather simple minimum credible deterrence

You do understand you just changed your position 3 times, from FU to NFU to FU to NFU.
So I should take this as a "maybe" of a "i'm not sure"?

 

[LiberalAtheist]

You do understand you just changed your position 3 times, from FU to NFU to FU to NFU.
So I should take this as a "maybe" of a "i'm not sure"?

my view of nuclear weapons depends on the situation really NFU for non nuclear states NFU against nuclear states UNLESS deterrence fails i'll let you figure out the rest

 

[JustForFun]

my view of nuclear weapons depends on the situation really NFU for non nuclear states NFU against nuclear states UNLESS deterrence fails i'll let you figure out the rest

NFU against non nuclear states = NO USE
NFU against nuclear states UNLESS deterrence fails = FU = MAD

So in the end to you some loss of land is more important than the life of the entire Indian population

 

[LiberalAtheist]

NFU against non nuclear states = NO USE
NFU against nuclear states UNLESS deterrence fails = FU = MAD

So in the end to you some loss of land is more important than the life of the entire Indian population

what do you expect if we get nuked you expect us not to nuke back? that is the point of NFU if Russia nuked the U.S do you think uncle sam would stand by idly?

 

[JustForFun]

what do you expect if we get nuked you expect us not to nuke back? that is the point of NFU if Russia nuked the U.S do you think uncle sam would stand by idly?

Now I am really confused
Did you not state that

NFU against nuclear states UNLESS deterrence fails

No First Use UNLESS deterrence fails, doesn't it mean that you will USE FIRST if others are not deterred and attack you (conventionally, not nuking you)
If you get nuked then it isn't FIRST USE anymore so the word UNLESS makes no sense in your statement.

So let me make this easy on you, just awnser with yes or no:
Are you willing to use nukes before anyone else does is you are attacked conventionally and you are losing badly?