Why India should retain its No fast use policy ?

[StingRoy]

I think future wars will not be fought on the battlefields, but rather on a strategic level. Our country's economies have become a huge asset that no one will endanger at the cost of war.
We will start to see economic wars being played, but a war on the battlefield is highly unlikely.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

if indo pak war means MAD then indo china war means SUPER MAD.... people outa here keep fighting but forget we are half the humanity..... China is strong but India these days aint weak either....

You want to become "SUPER MAD"?

Anyway, even the USA doesn't want to fight with another nuclear power, look what happened in the Georgian war in 2008, when Russia entered.

Forget a nuclear war, even a conventional war would be a big financial/economic loss.

 

[prototype]

we donot have it, on state level. we have offensive defence strategy.

This so called offensive defense and defensive offence is rubbish,I am not concerned if India retains NFU or not because when next time Pakistan threaten to use nukes against India when their hat fell,and when really our survival will be at stake,our citizens r not going to ask our govt why did u used nukes,even when u have a NFU policy.

 

[prototype]

You want to become "SUPER MAD"?

Anyway, even the USA doesn't want to fight with another nuclear power, look what happened in the Georgian war in 2008 when Russia came in.

Even a conventional war would be a big financial/economic loss.

Reality,well spotted,most of the time,two nuclear power even dont enter in a war,its not good for health and business.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Reality,well spotted,most of the time,two nuclear power even dont enter in a war,its not good for health and business.

Exactly.

Even North Korea can get away with the biggest provocations (including direct attacks on US allies), since they have a few atomic bombs.

Nobody wants to get nuked, not even once.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Very well put.

All this 1st / 2nd / 3rd use are all semantics meant for the gallery.

The essence of nukes is that their lose their deterrent effect once used. Quite like a clenched fist which carried a punch when closed but has not impact once opened.

Nukes are useful only as a deterrent!!
They are useful only as long as they not used. Though that seems paradoxical, its the only truth.

 

[divya]

hahaha irony is most deadly weapons are reasons for peace in the south asian sub continent

 

[notorious_eagle]

I think future wars will not be fought on the battlefields, but rather on a strategic level. Our country's economies have become a huge asset that no one will endanger at the cost of war.
We will start to see economic wars being played, but a war on the battlefield is highly unlikely.

Sorry but i don't agree with you. When sh** hits the fan, trust me nations will be fighting each other on the battlefield like the good old days. This is the way human psychology works, when nations will be competing against each other for resources and furthering their own interests, nothing is more effective than a war or a threat of a war. Their is a reason why the world is spending so much money on arms , nations dont buy expensive weapons to showcase them on parade.

 

[hembo]

Sorry but i don't agree with you. When sh** hits the fan, trust me nations will be fighting each other on the battlefield like the good old days. This is the way human psychology works, when nations will be competing against each other for resources and furthering their own interests, nothing is more effective than a war or a threat of a war. Their is a reason why the world is spending so much money on arms , nations dont buy expensive weapons to showcase them on parade.

Time to change datum vission on world geo-political relationship web my friend..

 

[below_freezing]

There is no way India only has 50-60 nukes. I'm sure India has at least 200 nukes.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

There is no way India only has 50-60 nukes. I'm sure India has at least 200 nukes.

India has around 90 nukes assembled , but it has enough fission material to make a lot more , A RAW chief estimated India can produce 130 kg of plutonium per year aft the nuke deal. The actual number is a closely guarded secret.

 

[Markus]

India should retain no-first-use policy against non-nuclear states and should cancel the no-first policy against nuclear declared states.

Simple!

 

[PRACTICAL PATRIOT]

`we are powerful enough to tackle any country without using nukes first so we dont need to change our no first use policy.
weapons of mass destruction are not meant to be used actually. they are their just to stop the wars with the fear of destruction and i dont want to see INDIA nuking any country from its side unless anyone forces us to.

 

[Jackdaws]

Indian National Security Advisor Shri Shiv Shankar Menon signaled a significant shift from "no first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear weapon states" in a speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations of the National Defence College in New Delhi on October 21, 2010, a doctrine Menon said reflected India's "strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence."

 

[Jackdaws]

India should give up its nukes voluntarily if the UN agrees to some policy of making all of Asia - nuclear-free. If neither India, China nor Pakistan had nukes - all of Asia would feel safer. Let the Americans and Russians target nukes at each other - why can't Asia take the lead in making the world a nuclear free zone?