What is the advantage of having a No-First-Use policy on Nuclear Weapons over a reciprocating one?

Shajida Khan

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
492
Location
Seattle
Reactions
548 25 0
#1
India face an assymetrical challenge as far as Nuclear weapons go. One one hand, we lose option of first use of nuclear weapons in a decapitating strike on Pakistan and on another hand we are forced to invest massively in SLBM / SSBN program, BMD program, space based missile launch detection program. Not to mention, the sheer threat of nuclear weapons have made our conventional weapon superiority worthless. This makes nuclear weapons a pretty dud and self-defeating investment for us. Shouldn't we be declaring that if Pakistan does not declare no-first-use policy, we should also reserve the right to strike them first with a de-capitating strike. This will force Pakistan to also 'invest' in BMD and survivable nuclear weapons. Right now, nuclear war is an option for Pakistan and a compulsion for India.
 

Arvind

Moderator
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
729
Location
India
Reactions
513 208 0
#2
India face an assymetrical challenge as far as Nuclear weapons go. One one hand, we lose option of first use of nuclear weapons in a decapitating strike on Pakistan and on another hand we are forced to invest massively in SLBM / SSBN program, BMD program, space based missile launch detection program. Not to mention, the sheer threat of nuclear weapons have made our conventional weapon superiority worthless. This makes nuclear weapons a pretty dud and self-defeating investment for us. Shouldn't we be declaring that if Pakistan does not declare no-first-use policy, we should also reserve the right to strike them first with a de-capitating strike. This will force Pakistan to also 'invest' in BMD and survivable nuclear weapons. Right now, nuclear war is an option for Pakistan and a compulsion for India.
Can any country drag us to ICJ if we do not follow our no first use policy and do a first strike?

or in another term, will we be even worried of that country dragging us to ICJ whom we have already nuked?

I dont see merit in discussing the NFU disadvantage, rather it has added advantage of showing us as responsible power in peace time. In war, who cares.
 

Shajida Khan

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
492
Location
Seattle
Reactions
548 25 0
#3
Can any country drag us to ICJ if we do not follow our no first use policy and do a first strike?

or in another term, will we be even worried of that country dragging us to ICJ whom we have already nuked?
The problem is seldom of the war time. The problem is of peace time; if you can call our relationship with Pakistan as a peace time one.
During peace time, we are paying much higher price, having less options and most importantly have handed the other party a low-cost counter to all our counter-attacks. The nuclear option. It was this nuclear option which stopped India from taking punitive actions after attack on parliament. It is this option which has given Pakistan a virtual shield of sorts. The shield behind which all its anti-India acts can hide. And its a cost effective shield. If Pakistan has to spend money on SSBNs and BMDs, it will bleed and will have less money available elsewhere.

it has added advantage of showing us as responsible power in peace time. In war, who cares.
These things are more of a justification to pre-decided policies. Russia will not stop supporting our case in UNSC or NSG if we stopped following NFU. Neither China will support us even if we are following NFU. Real-Politik dictates these decisions.
 

lcafanboy

Active member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
248
Location
Bangalore
Reactions
289 109 0
#4
India face an assymetrical challenge as far as Nuclear weapons go. One one hand, we lose option of first use of nuclear weapons in a decapitating strike on Pakistan and on another hand we are forced to invest massively in SLBM / SSBN program, BMD program, space based missile launch detection program. Not to mention, the sheer threat of nuclear weapons have made our conventional weapon superiority worthless. This makes nuclear weapons a pretty dud and self-defeating investment for us. Shouldn't we be declaring that if Pakistan does not declare no-first-use policy, we should also reserve the right to strike them first with a de-capitating strike. This will force Pakistan to also 'invest' in BMD and survivable nuclear weapons. Right now, nuclear war is an option for Pakistan and a compulsion for India.
If push comes to shove, India will launch pre-emptive strikes. So NFU is just for name sake to India as responsible nuclear power to gain brownie points to enter NSG and un security council. During war we will use sharpest of our claws to rip apart our enemies pakistan included. Why are we tracking Pakistani nukes so closely? We even know pakistan use ambulance to shift Nukes and that too through busy by lanes. That's the depth of Indian intelligence tracking Pak Nukes and during war these will be first targets....πŸ™‚πŸ™‚πŸ™‚
 

Shajida Khan

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
492
Location
Seattle
Reactions
548 25 0
#5
If push comes to shove, India will launch pre-emptive strikes. So NFU is just for name sake to India as responsible nuclear power to gain brownie points to enter NSG and un security council. During war we will use sharpest of our claws to rip apart our enemies pakistan included. Why are we tracking Pakistani nukes so closely? We even know pakistan use ambulance to shift Nukes and that too through busy by lanes. That's the depth of Indian intelligence tracking Pak Nukes and during war these will be first targets....πŸ™‚πŸ™‚πŸ™‚
Its not the war-time I am so much concerned about. It is so called 'Peace-Time'. I want the maximum bang for my buck. I would even be fine with a 'Samsonish-Option'. India has the weapon but will be silent about when it will be deployed. It multiplies the deterrence and forces the enemy to bleed money.
 

RATHORE

Lion of Rajputana
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
1,044
Location
USA
Reactions
1,328 469 0
#6
India face an assymetrical challenge as far as Nuclear weapons go. One one hand, we lose option of first use of nuclear weapons in a decapitating strike on Pakistan and on another hand we are forced to invest massively in SLBM / SSBN program, BMD program, space based missile launch detection program. Not to mention, the sheer threat of nuclear weapons have made our conventional weapon superiority worthless. This makes nuclear weapons a pretty dud and self-defeating investment for us. Shouldn't we be declaring that if Pakistan does not declare no-first-use policy, we should also reserve the right to strike them first with a de-capitating strike. This will force Pakistan to also 'invest' in BMD and survivable nuclear weapons. Right now, nuclear war is an option for Pakistan and a compulsion for India.
Because I don't think India would ever go for a nuclear decapitation strike against anybody; and when facing any adversary with a tonne of nuclear weapons spread out over different areas and existing in different forms (with different delivery mechanisms) - it's simply too risky to go for a decapitation strike against them, because the likelihood of the surviving nuclear weapons (even if they are few) being used against the theoretical aggressor is too high. Pakistan is being bled dry as it is, and there are other ways to bleed them that we should be focusing on; as for survivability - I believe their Air Force already keeps some weapons for delivery, they have also built a tonne of small tactical devices for use on the ground which are difficult to keep track of and account for 100%, and it's always a possibility that the Chinese give them the capability to launch nuclear tipped ballistic missiles from the submarines they're giving them. So even without a proper nuclear triad, Pakistan has just enough nuclear survivability to force us to think things through before doing anything.

From my time spent here, to me it looks like India certainly won't go nuclear first, but in a gray area of sorts, retains the right to launch a pre-emptive attack on Pakistani nuclear weapons if it senses that they are being deployed and prepped with the intention of imminent usage. Only problem with that is, with all the tactical devices Pakistan has floating around, I'm not completely sure India can account for every single one and avoid getting hit at all. And then there's also the matter of the PAF and potentially the Pakistan Navy's nuclear devices, if any. Although this is all largely theoretical and focuses on scenarios more likely during or after a long war anyways. India has shown that there is room for limited, quick conflict/action under the nuclear threshold - so perhaps all future conflicts will have to be lightning quick; keeping things under the nuclear threshold and also preventing China from becoming involved/international pressure sufficiently building.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
574
Location
New Delhi
Reactions
984 49 0
#7
If China keeps vetoing NSG membership then India should scrap NFU policy, otherwise nope especially when we're going to have BMD, S-400 etc. Its more fun this way.
 

randomradio

Senior member
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
2,142
Location
India
Reactions
1,537 169 0
#8
India face an assymetrical challenge as far as Nuclear weapons go. One one hand, we lose option of first use of nuclear weapons in a decapitating strike on Pakistan and on another hand we are forced to invest massively in SLBM / SSBN program, BMD program, space based missile launch detection program.
Our nuclear doctrine is worded in such a way that we can use nukes even if there's the threat of nukes being used against us. So we have little to fear about our NFU holding us back. Our politicians are the weak link.

Our NFU policy in fact prevents us from being blamed for any future nuclear strike we may conduct.

Shouldn't we be declaring that if Pakistan does not declare no-first-use policy, we should also reserve the right to strike them first with a de-capitating strike. This will force Pakistan to also 'invest' in BMD and survivable nuclear weapons. Right now, nuclear war is an option for Pakistan and a compulsion for India.
Pakistan eventually intends on getting BMD capability themselves. Different story that they have more pressing matters to attend to before they get enough BMD.

Nuclear war is not an option for Pakistan. Their Generals and officers want to hold power and live a comfortable life, can't do that when they will get hunted down worldwide for initiating a nuclear war.

Not to mention, the sheer threat of nuclear weapons have made our conventional weapon superiority worthless. This makes nuclear weapons a pretty dud and self-defeating investment for us.
Conventional capability is superior to nuclear capability. Even the Russians haven't done that to the US.
 

Arvind

Moderator
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
729
Location
India
Reactions
513 208 0
#9
The problem is seldom of the war time. The problem is of peace time; if you can call our relationship with Pakistan as a peace time one.
During peace time, we are paying much higher price, having less options and most importantly have handed the other party a low-cost counter to all our counter-attacks. The nuclear option. It was this nuclear option which stopped India from taking punitive actions after attack on parliament.
Will you trust Pak with NFU policy if Pak claim so?

Or do you really believe India having NFU is emboldening Pak to create ruckus?

NFU is an equal bluff as FU is.

These things are more of a justification to pre-decided policies. Russia will not stop supporting our case in UNSC or NSG if we stopped following NFU. Neither China will support us even if we are following NFU. Real-Politik dictates these decisions.
Why did US need to cite weapon of mass destruction to invade Iraq or human rights violation in dictator led Libya? Does that make their endeavor any holy or not doing the same they would have lost NATO support?

No right?

Why building a perception is necessary then?

Clue: the public, common men, support matters while government formulate policies. If they can not get that automatically, which they generally cant for Real-Politik reasons, they build genuine case by propaganda.
 

lcafanboy

Active member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
248
Location
Bangalore
Reactions
289 109 0
#11
Will you trust Pak with NFU policy if Pak claim so?

Or do you really believe India having NFU is emboldening Pak to create ruckus?
I would rather say, Does Pakistan trust India with its NFU policy, if India claim so?

Or do really believe Pakistan and Pakistani army generals are that stupid?

I would like to give you a hint. In aftermath of Uri attack India launched surgical strikes deep into Pak territories successively for several days and borders were lit up like war and Indian army literally killed hundreds of Pakistani army and their proxies even then Pak army generals didn't launched any so called tactical nuclear weapons. Instead they kept hiding their casualties, taking on insults from India. WHY?
They knew they are being watched and knew Pakistan will be finished even before they did anything stupid.😁😁😁😁
 

Arvind

Moderator
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
729
Location
India
Reactions
513 208 0
#12
I would rather say, Does Pakistan trust India with its NFU policy, if India claim so?

Or do really believe Pakistan and Pakistani army generals are that stupid?

I would like to give you a hint. In aftermath of Uri attack India launched surgical strikes deep into Pak territories successively for several days and borders were lit up like war and Indian army literally killed hundreds of Pakistani army and their proxies even then Pak army generals didn't launched any so called tactical nuclear weapons. Instead they kept hiding their casualties, taking on insults from India. WHY?
They knew they are being watched and knew Pakistan will be finished even before they did anything stupid.😁😁😁😁
Are you supporting my argument or claiming otherwise?
 

lcafanboy

Active member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
248
Location
Bangalore
Reactions
289 109 0
#13
Are you supporting my argument or claiming otherwise?
Supporting. Rather clearly even an idiot knows that NFU non existent and Pak army generals know it, hence were not even able to touch the nuke trigger. They knew their hands will be blown even before they pulled the trigger.