"No first use" Maybe changed if new goverment comes to power

[Arya Desa]

Looks more like immature "nuclear sabre rattling" to me. It was the same party that carried out nuclear tests in 98, then threatened Pakistan with military attack, now this drama.

Do we care? Nah

Are we afraid? Haha

You sure were afraid when you made nuclear bombs just because we had them.

 

[SQ8]

You sure were afraid when you made nuclear bombs just because we had them.

Off course, you had a gun.. we had knives. That is a stupid statement to make that one would not be afraid in that situation. In today's context.. we both have guns. Are we afraid now is the question?

I still think we are, not because you have a gun or we have a gun. But because you have much more knives than us and we know that we will have to use a gun to stop you.. and so will you. After which we both basically die...
So the real question is.. who is willing to die?

 

[Arya Desa]

Off course, you had a gun.. we had knives. That is a stupid statement to make that one would not be afraid in that situation. In today's context.. we both have guns. Are we afraid now is the question?

I still think we are, not because you have a gun or we have a gun. But because you have much more knives than us and we know that we will have to use a gun to stop you.. and so will you. After which we both basically die...
So the real question is.. who is willing to die?

You have what 80 kiloton yield nukes? It will take 10 to destroy each Indian city, if not more. In the end we will still have 1 billion people alive, while pakistan will cease to exist. The truth is India can absorb those nukes by virtue of her immense population that is evenly distributed, you on the other hand cannot. Will we attack first? Of course not, we want to develop but if that reality ever materializes, we will still exist while pakistan won't. I really don't know why pakistan overestimates themselves.

 

[Srinivas]

This policy is related to China!!

It is better to remove the no first use clause to defend India's territories.

 

[janon]

I did not expect this from Reuters. They are putting two and two together and coming up with ten. Even the unnamed "aides" they quoted have not said anything about revising the NFU policy. All they have presented by way of quotes are some general statements about strengthening defence or foreign policy. The rest is overinterpretation by the reporters.

Anyway, as the Pakistanis quoted in the article correctly point out, it doesn't make a difference to India anyway - whether we launch nukes first or they do, the end result will be the same. Having a NFU gives us some moral high ground, both in the eyes of the world and our own. If there is a nuclear holocaust, the blame will not be on us.

All these "No First Use", NPT, etc. nonsense are propaganda weapons to be used by the West against countries which they want to pressure or sanction.

Since India is the darling of the West, it doesn't matter if it is has "No First Use", or "No Last Use" policy...

Our NFU policy is our own voluntary policy, not a western made propoganda. It was crafted by the BJP govt after Pokhran-2, and adopted unanimously by politicians and civil society and the military.

 

[Contrarian]

So India has lost faith in and have Real doubts about their Conventional military Strength to Subdue Pakistan.. ..seems like Indians are waking from the wet dream of Akhand Bharat..

Ofcourse!

Our military can never successfully fight against Pakistan.
Fighting conventionally against Pakistan means losing.

Just trying to save ourselves from invasion by Pakistan.


P.S: I dont know how its always Pakistani's that seem to be the dullest of the lot.

 

[janon]

First or No First Use policy , it hardly makes any difference here . Pakistan has not and will not operate based on Indian intentions but rather on its capabilities . The equilibrium and by extension , the deterrence value of course , are to be maintained at all costs .

Think about the contrary - does Pakistan having a NFU or not having a NFU affect Indian calculations? If so, why wouldn't it apply to the other side as well?

 

[paritosh]

So India has lost faith in and have Real doubts about their Conventional military Strength to Subdue Pakistan.. ..seems like Indians are waking from the wet dream of Akhand Bharat..

your comment makes no sense. The "no no first use" is coming from a party not in power.
Even if there was a severely dented conventional edge, Modi and co. can not possibly know about it.
It is an election jingle and nothing more than that, to appeal to the fancy of the red-neck war-monger type.

 

[Missile]

Ab Moti ko apna coat bhi urtar Kay de do wo bhi press ker de ga. had hai yar saray kaam Moti nay hi karnay hain.

 

[Developereo]

Our NFU policy is our own voluntary policy, not a western made propoganda. It was crafted by the BJP govt after Pokhran-2, and adopted unanimously by politicians and civil society and the military.

The entire point of No First Use is meaningless propaganda. No adversary is going to believe it.

No one believes that, if the army is decimated, cities are burning, and millions are dying in a conventional war (from destruction of infrastructure), that a country will just let its nuclear stockpile sit idly by.

 

[janon]

The entire point of No First Use is meaningless propaganda. No adversary is going to believe it.

No one believes that, if the army is decimated, cities are burning, and millions are dying in a conventional war (from destruction of infrastructure), that a country will just let its nuclear stockpile sit idly by.

We believe (don't you?) that such an eventuality will not arise in the India-Pakistan scenario. Pak simply does not have the conventional might to threaten the existence of India as a nation, or to decimate a large portion of its army, let alone in its entirety. Or to kill millions of people. Or to burn several of our cities far away from Pakistan. Not with conventional weapons or war. The disparity in military might is just too big, as is the geographic reality that India is a sprawling, big country whereas Pakistan is a long line along India's border.

Frankly, no country barring the USA has the conventional might to threaten the existence of India or bring about that much death and destruction as you described. No, not even China, because of geographic factors. (The sentinel himalayas.)

So if USA declares war on India, NFU will be the first casualty. But barring that, India does not need to go nuclear, since its existence cannot be threatened by Pakistan or anybody else. But one can't say the same about Pakistan - in a protracted conventional war, India has the size, might, depth and reserves to threaten the very existence of Pak. Which is why Pak cannot afford a NFU policy, but India can.

 

[Developereo]

We believe (don't you?) that such an eventuality will not arise in the India-Pakistan scenario. Pak simply does not have the conventional might to threaten the existence of India as a nation, or to decimate a large portion of its army, let alone in its entirety. Or to kill millions of people. Or to burn several of our cities far away from Pakistan. Not with conventional weapons or war. The disparity in military might is just too big, as is the geographic reality that India is a sprawling, big country whereas Pakistan is a long line along India's border.

Frankly, no country barring the USA has the conventional might to threaten the existence of India or bring about that much death and destruction as you described. No, not even China, because of geographic factors. (The sentinel himalayas.)

So if USA declares war on India, NFU will be the first casualty. But barring that, India does not need to go nuclear, since its existence cannot be threatened by Pakistan or anybody else. But one can't say the same about Pakistan - in a protracted conventional war, India has the size, might, depth and reserves to threaten the very existence of Pak. Which is why Pak cannot afford a NFU policy, but India can.

You are admitting that No First Use is a qualified policy: it only applies against weaker or comparable opponents, and not against overwhelming conventional superiority.

This is what every country, including Pakistan says.

According to your own logic, when any country (including China) attains sufficient conventional weapons' advantage against India, then India's No First Use policy may not apply against that country.

 

[janon]

You are admitting that No First Use is a qualified policy: it only applies against weaker or comparable opponents, and not against overwhelming conventional superiority.

This is what every country, including Pakistan says.

According to your own logic, when any country (including China) attains sufficient conventional weapons' advantage against India, then India's No First Use policy may not apply against that country.

To be more precise, the NFU will be held on to unless there is a real threat of the enemy being able to threaten the very existence of the state, or to cause sufficient destruction of cities and infrastructure and lives. In India's case, only the US has the conventional might to do that.

As for China, it is not simply about attaining enough superiority, but being able to use it. Even if they have a ten million strong army with one million tanks, they cannot bring all of those to bear on our cities. Not unless they find a way to level the Himalayas.

Hypothetically, I guess if they had so much air superiority and so many long ranged aircrafts that they can keep doing airstrikes on our cities, or if they put their divisions in Pakistan and attack us from the plains of Punjab, then yes they have a chance to do a lot of damage, and NFU might go for a toss. But that is all hypothetical.

As far as the India-Pak scenario is concerned, India's NFU policy is set in stone. We have nothing to gain by abandoning it.

 

[paritosh]

The entire point of No First Use is meaningless propaganda. No adversary is going to believe it.

No one believes that, if the army is decimated, cities are burning, and millions are dying in a conventional war (from destruction of infrastructure), that a country will just let its nuclear stockpile sit idly by.

In this day and age, the situation stated by you because of a conventional war is almost impossible to happen.

NFU becomes redundant in a lot of other scenarios though. The biggest perceived threat would be the launch of a nuclear capable missile by the enemy being detected. While it may be carrying a conventional payload, the launch itself might cause a nuclear strike by the target country. The second-strike/ first-strike lines get blurred in such a situation.

 

[Hashshāshīn]

The no first use policy is grossly misunderstood.
India has a no first use policy against the NON NUCLEAR STATES.
While Pakistan and China are already nuclear states.
So no first use policy can be circumvented in their case.
I am surprised BJP didnt look into this clause.

As of 2010, India has signaled a shift from "no first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear weapon states".[2]

No first use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can you have 'No First Use' when your enemy does not have nukes? They will not nuke India, because they don't have one! So it will always be first use