|
 Nuclear
weapons have never been used except in an exceptional
situation. In fact the only time nuclear weapons
have been used was almost at the end of Second
World War when the US devastated the Japanese
cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear strikes
in order to bring an early end to the war. It
is well known that how catastrophic the effect
was on both these cities and how soon thereafter
the Japanese capitulated.
It is also a fact that post the Second World
War, while a number of countries among the victors
of the war (US, UK, France and USSR) went ahead
with production of nuclear weapons with the aim
of dominating the geopolitical environment, it
was more the possession than their use that dictated
this philosophy. The havoc caused on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki sought to underline their massive
destructive potential and the overwhelmingly dominant
power in world affairs that accrued to possessors
of these weapons. This reality was also clearly
reflected in the grant of veto power in world
affairs to the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council (China got included in 1971).
While this rationale of granting permanent membership
of the UNSC to possessors of nuclear weapons may
have undergone a change subsequently with a number
of other countries like India, Pakistan, Israel
etc were also acquiring nuclear weapons. The acquisition
of nuclear prowess nevertheless, does bestow a
special status to a nation in the international
arena. No wonder, concerted efforts are currently
being made by a host of countries to acquire nuclear
weapons and still greater efforts are being put
in by their antagonists and the regulatory regimes
to deny them this capability.
A second aspect which needs to be noted is that
while the US and the USSR went ahead for increasing
their arsenal in a big way post the war and the
world witnessed an intense cold war between the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and
the Warsaw Pact till the breakup of the Soviet
Union, the threshold of use of nuclear weapon
was never crossed by either side. Incidents like
the Cuban missile crisis brought both adversaries
close to the brink with the rest of the world
watching with baited breath till sanity prevailed
on both sides and the possibility of a nuclear
holocaust receded.
Even in the present day environment, while there
is an element of uncertainty and ambiguity about
the use of nuclear weapons by a country like Pakistan,
the fact that it has not happened so far is indicative
of conscious awareness in that country of the
dangers of its use. Rogue states like North Korea
may have utilised the threat of use of nuclear
weapons to gain economic advantages for themselves,
yet in practice they have never done so. Israel’s
possession of nuclear weapons has of course ensured
its security in a perpetually hostile Middle East
environment.
All these facts clearly point to a nuclear bomb
being a political weapon. Its possession and the
threat of its use enable the possessor to derive
critical advantages in the international field.
As to how its actual usage would impact the world
can only be extrapolated from what happened post
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world community should
also not forget that bombs used then were primitive
in nature by today’s standards.
It would also be correct to say that even tactical
nuclear weapons (TNWs) fall in the same category
as other nuclear weapons. While they may be tactical
in nature with their usage in the domain of counter
force targets and effect restricted to a limited
area, the level shifts from ‘conventional’
to ‘nuclear’. Thus if Pakistan’s
response to India’s ‘cold start’
strategy which is in the conventional domain shifted
to TNWs, then it would have surely graduated to
the nuclear level. Whether it is a counter force
or counter value weapon, once the level shifts
to nuclear from conventional, escalation and assured
destruction from both sides will be difficult
to stop. The belief that TNWs are an extension
of conventional war and may be used against an
advancing military is self delusionary.
The change of government at the Centre has brought
in to focus the Indian policy of No First Use
(NFU). Views have been expressed in the media
that in the current environment, the present policy
of NFU is not suitable and needs to be reviewed
and revised. The BJP election manifesto on the
issue has been cited as the rationale for a de-novo
look.
Before contemplating to undertake such an exercise,
all should keep in mind some relevant facts. Firstly,
national policies should not be undergoing a change
purely because there has been a change of government
at the Centre. National policies like foreign
policy, security strategy, nuclear doctrine etc.
have been formulated after thorough discussion
and debate both within and outside Parliament,
taking opinion of all sections of the society.
They reflect the culture and ethos of a nation
and its people. While international dynamics and
environment may prompt the necessity for a minimal
change to suit the requirements of the nation,
it does not imply the total reversal of the existing
policy. Surely not just because a new government
has come into power and wanted to demonstrate
that it is different from the previous regime!
It is expected to bring about only those changes
which are in national interest and reflect the
combined will of the nation.
Secondly, conceptually, India has always stood
for peace in the world and banning of all nuclear
weapons. While that may seem as an unrealisable
dream of an ideal world, it nevertheless remains
on India’s wish list. India’s acquisition
of nuclear weapons was dictated more by the necessity
of defending itself and its territorial integrity
than any attempts at hegemony. Thus, its nuclear
weaponry primarily provides it deterrence and
defensive capability against hostile neighbours.
India has no designs of using nuclear weapons
for offensive purposes. Thirdly, the policy of
NFU supports the Indian philosophy of peaceful
coexistence. As per this policy, India will not
use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear power.
Further, even against a nuclear power, it will
not be the first one to use nuclear weapons. It
is only in response to a nuclear strike that India
reserves the right to retaliate massively in its
defence. Thus the defensive intent of the nation’s
nuclear policy is quite clear.
If this be the framework of India’s NFU
policy, it should look at its advantages and disadvantages.
First and foremost, it is in consonance with the
Indian philosophy of peace in the world. Secondly,
it is in tune with the Indian policy of non-alignment
with any of the power blocs and non interference
in each other’s affairs. Such an approach
also provides India total autonomy in decision
making in national interest. Thirdly, it recognises
the vulnerability of non nuclear states and shuns
use of nuclear weapons against them. Fourthly,
NFU policy reduces the possibility of a nuclear
war considerably since it is reactive and not
pro active in nature. Fifthly, it underlines resort
to nuclear weapons only after conventional war
options have all been exhausted thus reducing
the inevitability of a nuclear exchange. Lastly,
any country starting a nuclear war would always
stand condemned in the eyes of the rest of the
world for the destruction and damage such a war
would cause. NFU clearly specifies intent of non
use of nuclear weapons first, thereby earning
respect of the global community.
On the flip side, survivability of a country’s
nuclear arsenal for a credible second strike capability
against a first strike by a formidable adversary
would always leave a degree of doubt and unease.
Secondly, by recognising that the initiative to
use nuclear weapons would always lie with the
adversary, it gives the country an inherent advantage
of time and place of its choosing in starting
use of nuclear weapons. Thirdly, it is argued
that NFU exposes own countrymen to unnecessary
and avoidable risks.
While there are pros and cons for both options,
it needs to be understood that in a world exposed
to a nuclear war, the death and destruction would
be so tremendous that victors and losers would
both stand decimated at the end of the conflict.
The rest of the world too would have suffered
collateral damage and would point accusing fingers
at the initiators of a nuclear war. In essence,
it makes sense for India to continue to follow
the NFU policy. It is heartening to note that
both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister
Rajnath Singh have clarified that while a degree
of refinement to the existing policy may be carried
out to suit India’s national interest; there
is no intent to substantially change it at the
present moment. That is as it should be, since
it is in consonance with Indian culture, ethos,
world view and desire for autonomy in decision
making.
|
