Post navigation

It was the result of years of political diplomacy and experience of its strategic behavior of world nuclear forces. India had decided that No-First use Nuclear Policy What India mean for the nuclear policy.

No First Use Nuclear Policy

In 2003, India adopted the policy of not conducting any nuclear attack on any country. Under political leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpai and the technical leadership of Kalam. However, this policy was opposed from the very beginning of its origin. Opposition had their own arguments that India’s nuclear policy depended only on the counterattack strategy. India will have to wait for the enemy to attack nuclear weapon first and after that India will attack the enemy. This policy shows a softening in India’s strategic policy. The policy is inspired by the political idealism. And India has adopted this policy to create the image of a responsible nuclear power country.

“No First Use”- It refers to a pledge or a policy by a nuclear power not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons

India’s Nuclear Doctrine:

The doctrine made it clear that India’s nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage.

Also, “in the event of a major attack against India or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons”.

Benefits of Not first Use Policy:

India’s strategic caution stance has provided major winnings internationally, including the lifting of economic sanctions, reservation at NSG, Association of Nuclear groups like MTCR, the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Australia Group.

If India gave up its no-first-use doctrine, it could give China or Pakistan a chance to adopt a first-strike policy and shift blame on India.

It is India’s no first use doctrine that has made Pakistan and India to keep their nuclear arsenal in a dormant state rather than a ready deterrent posture. [Nuclear warheads are not mounted in the delivery systems. This reduces the chances of nuclear terrorism in Pakistan and also reduces the possibility of an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon.]

The first-strike policy would harshly hurt India’s stature as a responsible nuclear-weapon state.

First use Nuclear Policy is meaningless but Second Strike Capability

However, this is far from the truth. The policy of India not to use atomic weapons first, it is the result of crux of experience of its policy regulators. Nuclear policy of ‘no first use‘ was not a policy inspired by idealism, but a reflection of deep realism. India studied the policies of the world’s nuclear-powered countries and tested the impact of these policies. Policymakers were well aware that nuclear weapons have a limited use in the strategic policy of a country.

A Nuclear weapon is a deterrent and is not meant to be used… India Know it for last 70-75 years.

Pakistan has many times tried to threaten India of their nuclear weapons. So, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that India’s ‘no first use of nuclear‘ policy may change in the future.

Today, the structure of India’s ‘no first use’ policy remains an empty skeleton. It is not enough to meet the challenges being given to it. So, it is right for us to review the policy afresh and try to understand why the policymakers of India at that time adopted the policy of ‘no first use’ nuclear weapons.

Under Modi government, India has moved from defensive to offensive approach. So it is possible that our nuclear weapon use policy may be revised. And it is necessary as Ghosts of feet don’t understand orally.

Walk a Mile to avoid a fight. But when one starts don’t back down an inch

Worst for Indian security point of view. When say I would hit back only if you hit me, that is Deterrence. But when you go for a checking strike then you basically asking your enemy to start the war with nuclear strike. Enemy, not knowing when you go for a nuclear strike, would strike you at the very beginning of the conflict.

Why should we stay silent and wait until at least one of our major cities is bombed by Pakistan ? and only then we should take action?

Faulty Judgment !! “Prevention is better than cure.”

The main reason for India’s policy of not using nuclear weapons first was that limited targets can be achieved with nuclear weapons. Its need is limited to the defense of the country. And the danger to the existence of the country can arise only in the event of an atomic attack. Atomic weapons are completely different from conventional weapons. Because they cause a lot of havoc and that too in a very short time.

Atomic weapons have the ability to destroy any society on any given evening. There is only one way to avoid such catastrophe and to show the fear of destruction to a potential enemy armed with an atomic weapon. So that before attacking the enemy country, India, think that it will have to suffer the same kind of destruction. The only way to deal with nuclear weapons is to keep the enemy equipped with this power under control by showing fear of destruction.

Because there is no other way to protect against nuclear attack. However, the strategic strategists of many countries of the world also considered the option to keep the option of limited use of nuclear weapons open, so that the enemy should be taught a lesson even before the attack comes.

Threatening the enemy with nuclear power is the real security for any nuclear-weapon state. Putting the enemy in the heart that if he takes the risk of nuclear attack, then he will be punished only by a counter-attack.

The primary goal of making nuclear weapons – rather say that the only objective was to prevent enemy countries from carrying out nuclear attacks on India, then it was logical for India to show the enemy the fear of a nuclear attack. The only meaning of the counterattack is to react to an action. Showing the fear of their nuclear power to the enemies, preventing them from making such an attack, means that no nuclear attack should be done first. That is why India made a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons i.e. no first use.

There are other benefits of this policy. This established complete political control over nuclear weapons. This makes the Indian system of command and control of nuclear weapons not as stressful as it is in the hands of the nuclear weapon forces of a country.

The abandonment of the policy of ‘no first use’ means the first nuclear attack on the enemy. In such a situation, there is no point in making nuclear weapons just to intimidate the enemy. First, the benefit of following the policy of nuclear attack is only when there is a threat to the existence of the country, or there is a risk of any danger in which the country is expected to disappear. Look at Israel, for example. Israel feels that it is surrounded by enemy countries. Even though they do not have nuclear weapons, but the enemies on Israel’s border can eradicate it.

You may read below Articles:

Chernobyl Accident | Single-use Plastic Ban | World Ozone Day |

If we talk about other nuclear forces, then only the US and the Soviet Union’s policy of attacking before nuclear weapons seems logical. Both feared that the enemy might attack them suddenly. Therefore, both countries put their nuclear weapons in a position to launch immediately, so that the possibility of an attack can be immediately attacked with nuclear weapons. Apart from this, America had also taken the protection of its allies from the threat of the Soviet Union and China. In such a situation, America needed such a policy that it could do a nuclear attack first. There is no such strategic need for India to abandon the policy of ‘no first use’.

India need not say that its policy on nuclear weapons is of ‘no first use’. In this way, he will be bound in the bond created by himself. By following the policy of ‘no first use’, India’s options are limited. It is related to the nuclear weapons that India has and it’s strategic needs. To understand this better, we must first know that if India abandons its nuclear policy of ‘no first use’, what other options will it have to use nuclear weapons? After withdrawing from the promise of not using nuclear weapons first, India will have the option of first attacking the enemy.

But, the question is, under which circumstances will India be able to use nuclear weapons first? If India uses a nuclear weapon first in a country with nuclear power, then it is certain that India will also have to face a nuclear attack. Even if it is only in the form of a limited atomic attack. But, if this happens, India will have to face heavy destruction. Then no power will be able to prevent India from retaliating with nuclear weapons.

Implications of abandoning NFU for India:

India is now a member of most of the technology denial regimes such as the MTCR and the Wassenaar Arrangement. It is also actively pursuing full membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Revoking the ‘no first use’ pledge would harm India’s nuclear image worldwide.

Withdrawing the NFU policy and making a declaration to that effect such a step will abrogate India’s commitment to the universal goal of nuclear disarmament and upset the regional balance in the sub-continent.

and upset the regional balance in the sub-continent. Abrogating the doctrine would signal the first-use posture by India, thus reducing the space for conventional warfare below the nuclear threshold.

This could also severely corrode India’s ability to limit Pakistan’s offensive tactics and policies at the conventional level.

The decision to abandon the doctrine can send a deliberate signal of provocation to China.

Nuclear preemption is costly as it requires extensive investment not only in weapons and delivery systems but also in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) infrastructure.

India is yet to conscript the Multiple Reentry Vehicle technology in its missiles, which is fundamental to eliminating hardened nuclear targets.

The after-effects of the nuclear fallout, depending on the magnitude of nuclear explosions, could pose existential threats to humanity itself.

India’s concern is the policy promoting Pakistan’s terrorism. However, this concern is legitimate. Nevertheless, abandoning the policy of ‘no first use’ will not help much to alleviate these worries. Terrorism and Tactical Nuclear Weapon are both evidence that Pakistan considers itself inferior to India in terms of conventional weapons. In such a situation, if India threatens Pakistan to carry out a nuclear attack first, then this thing also seems meaningless to a great extent. It would be better if India, using its traditional power, ends such challenges faced by Pakistan and gives Pakistan a feeling that if it moves on the path of war, what will be its outcome.

After reviewing India’s policy of non-nuclear attack and the situation arising out of abandoning it, we come to the conclusion that this is a short cut way for India to achieve its strategic goals and not its strategic challenges. There is a carefully chosen option of a permanent solution. It would be embarrassing. Because India’s policy of ‘no first use’ is designed keeping in mind its strategic challenges and strategic needs.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook



Like this: Like Loading...

Related