H!TchHiker
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2016
- Messages
- 4,765
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Oh my bad ......i am Literally Shaking ......
Why bind ourselves to 'no first use policy'?
- Thread starter Ankit Kumar 002
- Start date
Lotus_stalk
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2016
- Messages
- 837
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Sorry for being politically incorrect...
Ok we accept that Pakistan can risk its 170 million population to wipe out India's 1 billion non-muslims, their fanatics can go through this. But can even the most extremist Islamists risk 1.5 billion muslims in retaliatory Indian nuclear strikes ?? This message should be unofficially given to those extreme Islamists... This is the best nuclear shield... better than S400 or iron dome...
Offensive defence is the best defence...
Ok we accept that Pakistan can risk its 170 million population to wipe out India's 1 billion non-muslims, their fanatics can go through this. But can even the most extremist Islamists risk 1.5 billion muslims in retaliatory Indian nuclear strikes ?? This message should be unofficially given to those extreme Islamists... This is the best nuclear shield... better than S400 or iron dome...
Offensive defence is the best defence...
livingdead
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2011
- Messages
- 22,952
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
the loudmouth DM strikes again, at worst possible time.... I guess he is too senior to be gagged by Modi.. unlike VK Singh.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
No first use has been the hallmark of India's effort to build an image as a responsible nuclear power.
Experts on Friday said that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s remarks on India’s ‘No First Use’ (NFU) policy on nuclear weapons could prove detrimental to India’s interests and that the comments can be interpreted as official policy by India’s adversaries.
Speaking at a book release function on Thursday, Mr. Parrikar expressed his “personal opinion” that if a written down strategy exists on a nuclear aspect, “we are actually giving away our strength in nuclear.” “..Why do lot of people say that India has NFU policy? Why should I bind myself,” he had asked.
No first use has been the hallmark of India’s effort to build an international image as a responsible nuclear power, observed Toby Dalton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“Unpredictability could in theory strengthen India’s deterrent, but not necessarily at the low end of the spectrum, where the instability is currently located. The question is whether the potential deterrence gains from ditching no first use would outweigh the reputational costs,” he told The Hindu.
Monika Chansoria, Senior Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies questioned the timing of Mr. Parrikar's comment. “Mr. Parrikar questioning Indian NFU policy at this stage is critical, when India seemingly is exploring newer layers of signalling in deterrence and response options. After all, the surgical strike has managed to introduce an element of surprise, whereby India acted far from the anticipated line of action,” she said.
NSG entry
The comments came at a time when India has put in all diplomatic energy to gain entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the exclusive grouping which regulates global nuclear commerce.
India has put in place its nuclear doctrine with NFU and massive retaliation forming its core tenets soon after it tested nuclear weapons in the summer of 1998. The concept of maintaining a minimum credible deterrence and a nuclear triad for delivery of nuclear weapons based on aircraft, missiles and nuclear submarines flow from that.
Vipin Narang, Associate Professor of political science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) said that there is an official doctrine, and it has been reviewed internally multiple times by both the UPA and the BJP governments since 2003. “Each time, the conclusion was not to alter or dilute NFU,” he observed.
Noting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi too had publicly endorsed NFU, Dr. Narang felt that Mr. Parrikar, by speaking in his “personal capacity,” created “confusion” by voicing a contradictory position. “Mr. Parrikar is the Defence Minister. His personal opinions run the risk of being interpreted as official policy on this matter, which I can assure you now China and Pakistan will do,” he added.
Our Special Correspondent from Panaji adds:
Clarify policy on nuclear weapons: Digvijay
The Centre should come clean on whether the country’s stated policy on use of nuclear weapons has changed in view of the recent comments by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, said All India Congress Committee(AICC) general secretary Digvijay Singh here on Friday.
He was responding to Mr. Parrikar’s lound thinking on Thursday questioning the merits of being bound to the 'no-first-use' doctrine vis-a-vis nuclear weapons.
“The Prime Minister and the government of India must come clean on this. Have they changed the stated policy of the government of India as far as first use of nuclear weapons is concerned?” Mr. Singh asked on the sidelines of a Congress meeting here. Mr. Singh is in-charge of Congress affairs in Goa.
"First use of our nuclear arsenal is contrary to the stated policy of the government. We are a land which believes in the Gandhian principles of non-violence and we have always believed in the disarmament policy by Rajiv Gandhi,” Mr. Singh said.
Experts on Friday said that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s remarks on India’s ‘No First Use’ (NFU) policy on nuclear weapons could prove detrimental to India’s interests and that the comments can be interpreted as official policy by India’s adversaries.
Speaking at a book release function on Thursday, Mr. Parrikar expressed his “personal opinion” that if a written down strategy exists on a nuclear aspect, “we are actually giving away our strength in nuclear.” “..Why do lot of people say that India has NFU policy? Why should I bind myself,” he had asked.
No first use has been the hallmark of India’s effort to build an international image as a responsible nuclear power, observed Toby Dalton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“Unpredictability could in theory strengthen India’s deterrent, but not necessarily at the low end of the spectrum, where the instability is currently located. The question is whether the potential deterrence gains from ditching no first use would outweigh the reputational costs,” he told The Hindu.
Monika Chansoria, Senior Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies questioned the timing of Mr. Parrikar's comment. “Mr. Parrikar questioning Indian NFU policy at this stage is critical, when India seemingly is exploring newer layers of signalling in deterrence and response options. After all, the surgical strike has managed to introduce an element of surprise, whereby India acted far from the anticipated line of action,” she said.
NSG entry
The comments came at a time when India has put in all diplomatic energy to gain entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the exclusive grouping which regulates global nuclear commerce.
India has put in place its nuclear doctrine with NFU and massive retaliation forming its core tenets soon after it tested nuclear weapons in the summer of 1998. The concept of maintaining a minimum credible deterrence and a nuclear triad for delivery of nuclear weapons based on aircraft, missiles and nuclear submarines flow from that.
Vipin Narang, Associate Professor of political science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) said that there is an official doctrine, and it has been reviewed internally multiple times by both the UPA and the BJP governments since 2003. “Each time, the conclusion was not to alter or dilute NFU,” he observed.
Noting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi too had publicly endorsed NFU, Dr. Narang felt that Mr. Parrikar, by speaking in his “personal capacity,” created “confusion” by voicing a contradictory position. “Mr. Parrikar is the Defence Minister. His personal opinions run the risk of being interpreted as official policy on this matter, which I can assure you now China and Pakistan will do,” he added.
Our Special Correspondent from Panaji adds:
Clarify policy on nuclear weapons: Digvijay
The Centre should come clean on whether the country’s stated policy on use of nuclear weapons has changed in view of the recent comments by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, said All India Congress Committee(AICC) general secretary Digvijay Singh here on Friday.
He was responding to Mr. Parrikar’s lound thinking on Thursday questioning the merits of being bound to the 'no-first-use' doctrine vis-a-vis nuclear weapons.
“The Prime Minister and the government of India must come clean on this. Have they changed the stated policy of the government of India as far as first use of nuclear weapons is concerned?” Mr. Singh asked on the sidelines of a Congress meeting here. Mr. Singh is in-charge of Congress affairs in Goa.
"First use of our nuclear arsenal is contrary to the stated policy of the government. We are a land which believes in the Gandhian principles of non-violence and we have always believed in the disarmament policy by Rajiv Gandhi,” Mr. Singh said.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
As for the involvement of "great powers" in India-Pakistan relations, he said that "the lesson we have learnt is that it has not been helpful".
Regarding Pakistan's posturing of using tactical nuclear weapons, he said: "We don't speak of tactical nuclear weapons. Somebody else does that."
Former Foreign Secretary and National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, in a TV interview last week, said that the tactical nuclear weapons developed by Pakistan would be devolved to lower ranking officers at the battlefield level, who will be "younger officers in an army that is increasingly religiously motivated and less and less professional and that has consistently produced rogue officers and staged coups against its own leaders".
This, according to him, means that the likelihood of such tactical nuclear weapons being used against India has increased. Tactical nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons which are designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations.
Regarding Pakistan's posturing of using tactical nuclear weapons, he said: "We don't speak of tactical nuclear weapons. Somebody else does that."
Former Foreign Secretary and National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, in a TV interview last week, said that the tactical nuclear weapons developed by Pakistan would be devolved to lower ranking officers at the battlefield level, who will be "younger officers in an army that is increasingly religiously motivated and less and less professional and that has consistently produced rogue officers and staged coups against its own leaders".
This, according to him, means that the likelihood of such tactical nuclear weapons being used against India has increased. Tactical nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons which are designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...pak-nukes-former-nsa/articleshow/55581837.cms
NEW DELHI: India has effective deterrence against both China and Pakistan, but while China's nuclear weapons are a major strategic concern for India, Pakistan's nuclear programme "remains a daily source of tactical worry" and both countries' nuclear weapons programmes "are so closely linked... that they may effectively be treated as one", former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon has said.
In his newly-published book "Choices" (Penguin), Menon, who served in the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, first as Foreign Secretary and then as NSA, says the Pakistan Army seems to believe, mistakenly though, that the country's "nuclear shield permits Pakistan to undertake terrorist attacks on India without fear of retaliation".
But India's main worry is that Islamabad has developed "tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery systems" in the short, 60-km range and the decision to use these weapons would be in the hands of young officers "in an army increasingly religiously motivated and less and less professional and that has consistently produced rogue officers..."
However, says Menon, if Pakistan were to use tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield -- as the country's Defence Minister recently hinted darkly -- "it would effectively be opening the doors to a massive Indian first-strike, having crossed India's declared red lines".
That red line, Menon underlined, would also apply to the use of tactical weapons "even against Indian forces in Pakistan" -- Indian special forces did cross over to conduct the September 29 surgical strike across the Line of Control against "terrorist launchpads".
"In other words," reiterated Menon, "Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons use would effectively free India to undertake a comprehensive first-strike against Pakistan" in what is perhaps the most clear enunciation of India's nuclear doctrine to date by someone who has been closely involved in its policymaking and implementation.
With a debate started by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on India's no-first-use policy, which was earlier considered a strategic holy cow, Menon says "it is the uniqueness of India's situation that explains the uniqueness of India's nuclear doctrines and postures" as "no other nuclear-weapon state faces as complex a combination of factors in its deterrence calculus as India".
Menon says India's nuclear weapons have always been treated as "political instruments -- rather than war-fighting weapons as Pakistan treats them -- that deter nuclear attack and attempts at coercion" and the "clearer and simpler the task of our nuclear weapons, the more credible they are".
"And the more credible they are, the stronger will be their deterrent effect".
Menon also said that, with possible reference to the present debate, that "there is nothing in the present doctrine that prevents India from responding proportionately to a nuclear attack, from choosing a mix of military and civilian targets for its nuclear weapons.
"The doctrine speaks of punitive retaliation. The scope and scale of retaliation are in the hands of the Indian leadership," Menon emphasised.
He said while there was a "clear difference" between India's nuclear doctrine an Pakistan's, India's doctrine is "closest to the Chinese doctrine" in no-first-use policy (though somewhat hedged).
For its nuclear strategy to be truly effective, India must develop a "genuine delivery triad on land, sea and air as soon as possible to ensure survivability of its second-strike capability and to assure retaliation", he noted and added that the nuclear-armed Prithvi missiles developed with their limited range of 350 km "were effective deterrents in our situation".
NEW DELHI: India has effective deterrence against both China and Pakistan, but while China's nuclear weapons are a major strategic concern for India, Pakistan's nuclear programme "remains a daily source of tactical worry" and both countries' nuclear weapons programmes "are so closely linked... that they may effectively be treated as one", former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon has said.
In his newly-published book "Choices" (Penguin), Menon, who served in the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, first as Foreign Secretary and then as NSA, says the Pakistan Army seems to believe, mistakenly though, that the country's "nuclear shield permits Pakistan to undertake terrorist attacks on India without fear of retaliation".
But India's main worry is that Islamabad has developed "tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery systems" in the short, 60-km range and the decision to use these weapons would be in the hands of young officers "in an army increasingly religiously motivated and less and less professional and that has consistently produced rogue officers..."
However, says Menon, if Pakistan were to use tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield -- as the country's Defence Minister recently hinted darkly -- "it would effectively be opening the doors to a massive Indian first-strike, having crossed India's declared red lines".
That red line, Menon underlined, would also apply to the use of tactical weapons "even against Indian forces in Pakistan" -- Indian special forces did cross over to conduct the September 29 surgical strike across the Line of Control against "terrorist launchpads".
"In other words," reiterated Menon, "Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons use would effectively free India to undertake a comprehensive first-strike against Pakistan" in what is perhaps the most clear enunciation of India's nuclear doctrine to date by someone who has been closely involved in its policymaking and implementation.
With a debate started by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on India's no-first-use policy, which was earlier considered a strategic holy cow, Menon says "it is the uniqueness of India's situation that explains the uniqueness of India's nuclear doctrines and postures" as "no other nuclear-weapon state faces as complex a combination of factors in its deterrence calculus as India".
Menon says India's nuclear weapons have always been treated as "political instruments -- rather than war-fighting weapons as Pakistan treats them -- that deter nuclear attack and attempts at coercion" and the "clearer and simpler the task of our nuclear weapons, the more credible they are".
"And the more credible they are, the stronger will be their deterrent effect".
Menon also said that, with possible reference to the present debate, that "there is nothing in the present doctrine that prevents India from responding proportionately to a nuclear attack, from choosing a mix of military and civilian targets for its nuclear weapons.
"The doctrine speaks of punitive retaliation. The scope and scale of retaliation are in the hands of the Indian leadership," Menon emphasised.
He said while there was a "clear difference" between India's nuclear doctrine an Pakistan's, India's doctrine is "closest to the Chinese doctrine" in no-first-use policy (though somewhat hedged).
For its nuclear strategy to be truly effective, India must develop a "genuine delivery triad on land, sea and air as soon as possible to ensure survivability of its second-strike capability and to assure retaliation", he noted and added that the nuclear-armed Prithvi missiles developed with their limited range of 350 km "were effective deterrents in our situation".
Similar threads
