The leaders of Australia, United Kingdom and United States (AUKUS) stood together in San Diego earlier this week, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia unveiled a four-phase plan to acquire up to eight nuclear-powered submarines from the UK and US. The deal translates into transfer of nuclear technology from a nuclear weapons state to a non-weapons state, and has prompted <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-aukus-deal-sparks-proliferation-of-nuclear-weapons-debate-heres-why-572021">nuclear proliferation fears</a> worldwide.&nbsp;

"The fact that you have Highly Enriched Uranium reactors that are not easy to control when they are coming from a nuclear power to a non-nuclear power. So that is certainly an issue to be followed up," Professor Alexander Harang, Co-President of Oslo-headquartered International Peace and Understanding told WION, at the sidelines of India Centre Foundation's roundtable in New Delhi.

<h2>India and China's 'No First Use' proliferation safeguard</h2>

Amongst all of the world's nuclear powers — United States, Russia, China, India, Israel, United Kingdom, France, Pakistan, North Korea and NATO member nuclear weapons sharing states — India and China are the only two countries that maintain a 'No First Use' policy. That is, during an event of armed conflict, both New Delhi and Beijing have committed to not being the first nations to use nuclear weapons.&nbsp;

"It is possible to get a global agreement on No First Use of nuclear weapons," Harang said.
<img alt="Professor Alexander Harang" data-caption="Professor Alexander Harang at India Centre Foundation's roundtable on Alternate Development Models in New Delhi on March 14, 2023" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2e606c69-5f04-4345-8b84-78ebc8cecc72" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2821%29_16.jpg" />
"Since India and China already have no first use policies in place. They need to be leaders now," Harang added on an optimistic note, while referring to 'many immediate threats' that the world is facing in relation to the ongoing expansion of nuclear threat.&nbsp;

<h2>Significance of Iran-Saudi deal for nuclear non-proliferation</h2>

With China at the centre of the geopolitical picture, Iran and Saudi Arabia on March 11, agreed to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-saudi-arabia-restore-ties-as-china-brokered-deal-outfoxes-west-570766">restore diplomatic ties</a> after their seven years of bilateral estrangement in West Asia. Harang hailed the development as a 'great victory' for the non-proliferation movement.&nbsp;

"But we should definitely not think of this restoration of ties as a closed case. There is a wider proliferation issue in the Middle East if Iran gets into a nuclear programme," Harang cautioned, while referring to potential nuclear flashpoints in West Asia polarised on Shia-Sunni lines.

"Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt and also possibly the (United Arab) Emirates are ready to develop nuclear weapons. Either that, or enter a US nuclear umbrella in case of an Iranian nuclear bomb. That dynamic is still there," Alexander Harang added. &nbsp;

<h2>The world in crisis mode; the rules of N-game are changing</h2>

Referring to Russia's exit from Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-to-halt-participation-in-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty-564435">New START</a> Treaty, Harang said that the world is in "crisis mode".&nbsp;

"We are in the midst of quite many immediate threats," Harang told WION, while also emphasising on the current uproar in South Korea and past efforts by Brazil for armed nuclear self-sufficiency.

Harang believes that a global agreement on 'No First Use' by all nuclear-powered states would result in 'heightening the threshold for actually using the nuclear weapons', and will become an immediate deterrent measure against most immediate threats of a possible nuclear-armed escalation.&nbsp;

"A 'no first use' doctrine is what can cool the security apparatus down during an event of conflict. This is what can increase the strategic response time," Harang said while referring to the time a country gets during a conflict when it has to decide if it will respond to an attack with nuclear force or not.

But could a global agreement on 'no first use' be possible without the country with a reckless proliferation record coming on-board?&nbsp;

"Well, you don't start with Pakistan really?," Harang chuckled, and repeated, "You don't start with Pakistan. Not at this point."

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The leaders of Australia, United Kingdom and United States (AUKUS) stood together in San Diego earlier this week, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia unveiled a four-phase plan to acquire up to eight nuclear-powered submarines from the UK and US.

The leaders of Australia, United Kingdom and United States (AUKUS) stood together in San Diego earlier this week, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia unveiled a four-phase plan to acquire up to eight nuclear-powered submarines from the UK and US. The deal translates into transfer of nuclear technology from a nuclear weapons state to a non-weapons state, and has prompted nuclear proliferation fears worldwide. "The fact that you have Highly Enriched Uranium reactors that are not easy to control when they are coming from a nuclear power to a non-nuclear power. So that is certainly an issue to be followed up," Professor Alexander Harang, Co-President of Oslo-headquartered International Peace and Understanding told WION, at the sidelines of India Centre Foundation's roundtable in New Delhi. India and China's 'No First Use' proliferation safeguard Amongst all of the world's nuclear powers — United States, Russia, China, India, Israel, United Kingdom, France, Pakistan, North Korea and NATO member nuclear weapons sharing states — India and China are the only two countries that maintain a 'No First Use' policy. That is, during an event of armed conflict, both New Delhi and Beijing have committed to not being the first nations to use nuclear weapons. "It is possible to get a global agreement on No First Use of nuclear weapons," Harang said. "Since India and China already have no first use policies in place. They need to be leaders now," Harang added on an optimistic note, while referring to 'many immediate threats' that the world is facing in relation to the ongoing expansion of nuclear threat. Significance of Iran-Saudi deal for nuclear non-proliferation With China at the centre of the geopolitical picture, Iran and Saudi Arabia on March 11, agreed to restore diplomatic ties after their seven years of bilateral estrangement in West Asia. Harang hailed the development as a 'great victory' for the non-proliferation movement. "But we should definitely not think of this restoration of ties as a closed case. There is a wider proliferation issue in the Middle East if Iran gets into a nuclear programme," Harang cautioned, while referring to potential nuclear flashpoints in West Asia polarised on Shia-Sunni lines. "Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt and also possibly the (United Arab) Emirates are ready to develop nuclear weapons. Either that, or enter a US nuclear umbrella in case of an Iranian nuclear bomb. That dynamic is still there," Alexander Harang added. The world in crisis mode; the rules of N-game are changing Referring to Russia's exit from Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty, Harang said that the world is in "crisis mode". "We are in the midst of quite many immediate threats," Harang told WION, while also emphasising on the current uproar in South Korea and past efforts by Brazil for armed nuclear self-sufficiency. Harang believes that a global agreement on 'No First Use' by all nuclear-powered states would result in 'heightening the threshold for actually using the nuclear weapons', and will become an immediate deterrent measure against most immediate threats of a possible nuclear-armed escalation. "A 'no first use' doctrine is what can cool the security apparatus down during an event of conflict. This is what can increase the strategic response time," Harang said while referring to the time a country gets during a conflict when it has to decide if it will respond to an attack with nuclear force or not. But could a global agreement on 'no first use' be possible without the country with a reckless proliferation record coming on-board? "Well, you don't start with Pakistan really?," Harang chuckled, and repeated, "You don't start with Pakistan. Not at this point." WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Exclusive | Rules of nuclear wargame are changing. India's role, China's intent is in spotlight

Nearly 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, asked President Joe Biden on Thursday to use his forthcoming declaration of a new national strategy for managing nuclear weapons as a chance to cut the US arsenal by a third and to declare, for the first time, that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

The letter to Biden also urged him to change, for the first time since President Harry S. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, the American practice that gives the commander in chief sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. The issue gained prominence during the Trump administration, and the authors of the letter urged Biden to make the change as “an important safeguard against a possible future president who is unstable or who orders a reckless attack.”

But although Biden has often declared that he will be guided by scientific advice alone when it comes to managing the COVID-19 pandemic, he has made no such pledge in the nuclear arena, where strategists, allies protected by the American nuclear umbrella and members of Congress all have views — many of them diametrically opposed to the ones described by scientists.

Among the authors of the letter are numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists. They include Barry Barish of the University of California, Riverside, Jerome Friedman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Mather of the University of Maryland and Sheldon Glashow of Harvard, all of whom have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics; and Richard Garwin, a nuclear expert and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom who has advised a series of presidents.

They were motivated by the coming publication of the Nuclear Posture Review, a document each new president usually issues in the first year or two of his term. Biden’s is expected early next year, although the internal debate over its contents has been very closely held.

The letter noted Biden’s own words in 2017, as he was considering his run for president when he said that “it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary or make sense.” During the campaign, he said the “sole purpose” of the American arsenal “should be deterring — and if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack.”

The letter argued that “by making clear that the United States will never start a nuclear war, it reduces the likelihood that a conflict or crisis will escalate to nuclear war.” And it would demonstrate, they argued, that the United States was committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which obliges the nuclear-armed states to move toward reducing their arsenals.

President Barack Obama baulked at making the commitment, even while he declared that nuclear weapons would no longer be at the centre of American defence policy. And in recent months, American allies — including Japan, the target of that first attack — have argued quietly against a “no first use” declaration, saying that it would make them more vulnerable to a crippling, non-nuclear attack, including a cyberattack or conventional attack that could take out their electrical grids and their water and fuel lines.

Although the administration has not said how the new nuclear weapons strategy will be different from that of former President Donald Trump, some language echoing Biden’s carefully chosen term about the “sole purpose” of nuclear weapons seems likely. But that stops short of committing never to use a weapon first.

“The review will take account of the current security environment and will assess US strategy, posture and policy,” the White House’s National Security Council said in a statement. “The US will continue to maintain a safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent while ensuring our extended deterrence commitments to allies and partners remains strong and credible.”

A number of members of the House and Senate serving on national-security related committees have worried that at a time when China is expanding its arsenal and Russia is threatening former Soviet states that have joined NATO, a no-first-use pledge might give the appearance of weakness.

“No-first-use is feel-good foreign policy,’’ Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Thursday. “Our enemies wouldn’t take the commitment seriously. And it would undermine the confidence of our friends.”

The scientists and engineers argued for a commitment by Biden to reduce the arsenal to “fewer than 1,000 deployed missile warheads and bombers,” although they did not say by when. “These reductions will increase US national security,’’ they argued because it “will slow the spiralling nuclear arms race with Russia and China,” and help fulfil America’s treaty obligation “to take steps toward disarmament.”

But as a political matter, it is almost unimaginable that Biden would reduce the arsenal to that level without an agreement by Russia to do the same. When he came to office, Biden renewed, for five years, the New START treaty, which limits the arsenal to 1,550 long-range strategic weapons; currently, the US arsenal appears to be below that limit.

But in recent months, the revelation that China is building what appear to be new missile silos and testing potential delivery vehicles for hypersonic weapons that avoid traditional missile defences has led some Pentagon officials to call for new money for advanced weapons, and new classes of weapons that can deliver nuclear warheads — including hypersonic vehicles.

China has repeatedly said in recent months that it has no intention of entering arms control talks with the United States, noting that its arsenal is five times smaller than Washington’s.

The letter also urges Biden to cancel the program to replace the silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles that dot the American West. Under current plans, the United States will replace those ageing missiles starting in 2029, at a cost of at least $100 billion; the letter calls for Biden to simply extend the lifetime of the current arsenal, and ultimately “consider eliminating silo-based” missiles. Advocates of that position argue they are the most vulnerable to attack and are the weapons that are most likely to be launched first — perhaps in response to a false alarm.

&nbsp;

Nearly 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, asked President Joe Biden on Thursday to use his forthcoming declaration of a new national strategy for managing nuclear weapons as a chance to cut the US arsenal by a third and to declare, for the first time, that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

Nearly 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, asked President Joe Biden on Thursday to use his forthcoming declaration of a new national strategy for managing nuclear weapons as a chance to cut the US arsenal by a third and to declare, for the first time, that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. The letter to Biden also urged him to change, for the first time since President Harry S. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, the American practice that gives the commander in chief sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. The issue gained prominence during the Trump administration, and the authors of the letter urged Biden to make the change as “an important safeguard against a possible future president who is unstable or who orders a reckless attack.” But although Biden has often declared that he will be guided by scientific advice alone when it comes to managing the COVID-19 pandemic, he has made no such pledge in the nuclear arena, where strategists, allies protected by the American nuclear umbrella and members of Congress all have views — many of them diametrically opposed to the ones described by scientists. Among the authors of the letter are numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists. They include Barry Barish of the University of California, Riverside, Jerome Friedman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Mather of the University of Maryland and Sheldon Glashow of Harvard, all of whom have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics; and Richard Garwin, a nuclear expert and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom who has advised a series of presidents. They were motivated by the coming publication of the Nuclear Posture Review, a document each new president usually issues in the first year or two of his term. Biden’s is expected early next year, although the internal debate over its contents has been very closely held. The letter noted Biden’s own words in 2017, as he was considering his run for president when he said that “it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary or make sense.” During the campaign, he said the “sole purpose” of the American arsenal “should be deterring — and if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack.” The letter argued that “by making clear that the United States will never start a nuclear war, it reduces the likelihood that a conflict or crisis will escalate to nuclear war.” And it would demonstrate, they argued, that the United States was committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which obliges the nuclear-armed states to move toward reducing their arsenals. President Barack Obama baulked at making the commitment, even while he declared that nuclear weapons would no longer be at the centre of American defence policy. And in recent months, American allies — including Japan, the target of that first attack — have argued quietly against a “no first use” declaration, saying that it would make them more vulnerable to a crippling, non-nuclear attack, including a cyberattack or conventional attack that could take out their electrical grids and their water and fuel lines. Although the administration has not said how the new nuclear weapons strategy will be different from that of former President Donald Trump, some language echoing Biden’s carefully chosen term about the “sole purpose” of nuclear weapons seems likely. But that stops short of committing never to use a weapon first. “The review will take account of the current security environment and will assess US strategy, posture and policy,” the White House’s National Security Council said in a statement. “The US will continue to maintain a safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent while ensuring our extended deterrence commitments to allies and partners remains strong and credible.” A number of members of the House and Senate serving on national-security related committees have worried that at a time when China is expanding its arsenal and Russia is threatening former Soviet states that have joined NATO, a no-first-use pledge might give the appearance of weakness. “No-first-use is feel-good foreign policy,’’ Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Thursday. “Our enemies wouldn’t take the commitment seriously. And it would undermine the confidence of our friends.” The scientists and engineers argued for a commitment by Biden to reduce the arsenal to “fewer than 1,000 deployed missile warheads and bombers,” although they did not say by when. “These reductions will increase US national security,’’ they argued because it “will slow the spiralling nuclear arms race with Russia and China,” and help fulfil America’s treaty obligation “to take steps toward disarmament.” But as a political matter, it is almost unimaginable that Biden would reduce the arsenal to that level without an agreement by Russia to do the same. When he came to office, Biden renewed, for five years, the New START treaty, which limits the arsenal to 1,550 long-range strategic weapons; currently, the US arsenal appears to be below that limit. But in recent months, the revelation that China is building what appear to be new missile silos and testing potential delivery vehicles for hypersonic weapons that avoid traditional missile defences has led some Pentagon officials to call for new money for advanced weapons, and new classes of weapons that can deliver nuclear warheads — including hypersonic vehicles. China has repeatedly said in recent months that it has no intention of entering arms control talks with the United States, noting that its arsenal is five times smaller than Washington’s. The letter also urges Biden to cancel the program to replace the silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles that dot the American West. Under current plans, the United States will replace those ageing missiles starting in 2029, at a cost of at least $100 billion; the letter calls for Biden to simply extend the lifetime of the current arsenal, and ultimately “consider eliminating silo-based” missiles. Advocates of that position argue they are the most vulnerable to attack and are the weapons that are most likely to be launched first — perhaps in response to a false alarm.

Hundreds of scientists ask Biden to cut the US nuclear arsenal

India has reiterated its "No First Use" policy on nuclear weapons in the United Nations at the high-level meeting to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

India's foreign secretary Harsh V Shringla said, "India espouses the policy of "No First Use” against nuclear weapon states and non-use against non-nuclear-weapon states."

India adopted the "No first use" (NFU) policy in 1998 after the nuclear tests in Pokhran. China is the other country to adopt the NFU, which it did in 1964. Pakistan is the other state to possess nuclear weapons in the Indian subcontinent and does not follow the NFU policy.

FS reiterated India's "long-standing and unwavering commitment" to "universal, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament" leading to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

He explained,"We believe that nuclear disarmament can be achieved through a step-by-step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework", calling for "meaningful dialogue" among all states possessing nuclear weapons "for building trust and confidence".

India has since 1998 tabled an annual resolution in the UNGA on ‘Reducing Nuclear Danger’ that calls for immediate steps to reduce the risks of "unintentional and accidental" use of nuclear weapons.

At the UN meeting, that coincided with the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, India also called for "immediate commencement" of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty at the Conference on Disarmament, a multilateral disarmament negotiating forum based in Geneva.

Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty calls for halting the production of key "fissile" elements for nuclear weapons. The terms of the treaty are still to be negotiated, but Pakistan has been blocking much of the movement, saying it the treaty will impact its nuclear weapon production.&nbsp;

FS highlighted that "India is a key partner in global efforts towards disarmament and strengthening the non-proliferation order" hoping the international community will "mobilize global will towards a nuclear-weapons-free world."

India has reiterated its "No First Use" policy on nuclear weapons in the United Nations at the high-level meeting to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

India has reiterated its "No First Use" policy on nuclear weapons in the United Nations at the high-level meeting to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. India's foreign secretary Harsh V Shringla said, "India espouses the policy of "No First Use” against nuclear weapon states and non-use against non-nuclear-weapon states." India adopted the "No first use" (NFU) policy in 1998 after the nuclear tests in Pokhran. China is the other country to adopt the NFU, which it did in 1964. Pakistan is the other state to possess nuclear weapons in the Indian subcontinent and does not follow the NFU policy. FS reiterated India's "long-standing and unwavering commitment" to "universal, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament" leading to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. He explained,"We believe that nuclear disarmament can be achieved through a step-by-step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework", calling for "meaningful dialogue" among all states possessing nuclear weapons "for building trust and confidence". India has since 1998 tabled an annual resolution in the UNGA on ‘Reducing Nuclear Danger’ that calls for immediate steps to reduce the risks of "unintentional and accidental" use of nuclear weapons. At the UN meeting, that coincided with the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, India also called for "immediate commencement" of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty at the Conference on Disarmament, a multilateral disarmament negotiating forum based in Geneva. Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty calls for halting the production of key "fissile" elements for nuclear weapons. The terms of the treaty are still to be negotiated, but Pakistan has been blocking much of the movement, saying it the treaty will impact its nuclear weapon production. FS highlighted that "India is a key partner in global efforts towards disarmament and strengthening the non-proliferation order" hoping the international community will "mobilize global will towards a nuclear-weapons-free world."

India reiterates 'no first use' policy on nuclear weapons

Revisiting Pokhran nuclear tests that gave India 'no first use' nuclear policy

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday said that the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-no-first-use-nuclear-policy-in-future-will-depend-on-circumstances-rajnath-singh-243358">"no first use" nuclear policy</a> that India follows depends on the circumstances in the future.

"We have no first use policy regarding nuclear. It will depend on circumstances what will happen in the future," Singh said after paying homage to former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on his first death anniversary.

"In Pokhran, India emerged as a nuclear power. Despite all restraints, Atal ji gave permission for the nuclear test. India was listed among those countries which have nuclear power," he added.

Singh's comments came in the wake of the abrogation of Article 370 from Indian Constitution which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan has protested India's decision and is trying to internationalise the issue, but has so far been unsuccessful.

India has been following the policy of no first use since the time of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who announced it after the Pokhran nuclear tests in 1998.

No first use means India would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in case of a conflict. But many experts say the policy is not in sync with the geo-strategic conditions.

Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy and is building a nuclear weapons programme designed to counter India. It has even miniaturised warheads for use as tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield.

Comparable arsenals

India has much stronger conventional armed forces than Pakistan, but both countries have comparable nuclear arsenals.

Pakistan has 140-150 nuclear warheads compared to India's 130-140 warheads, according to a 2018 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

They are comparable in the sense that both have the capability to strike each other's territories and cause immense damage and massive loss of life.

India's nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine "INS Arihant" became operational last year, giving the country a "nuclear triad" - the ability to launch nuclear strikes by land, air and sea.

Pakistan is working on sea-launched cruise missiles to complete its own triad.

Pakistan has longer-range nuclear weapons, such as the Shaheen 3 missile that can reach India’s Andaman Islands near Southeast Asia. India is developing long-range ballistic missiles able to strike targets across China.

India also has concerns about China, which has a bigger military and more advanced strategic weapons.

History

India and Pakistan have taken different paths to develop their nuclear arsenals.

India is believed to have sought nuclear capabilities after its defeat in a brief 1962 border war with China.

For Pakistan, weapons experts say it was the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 that led to the independence of Bangladesh and proved a turning point for Islamabad.

Since then, the countries have engaged in an arms race that has outpaced traditional nuclear rivals.

(With inputs from Reuters)

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday said that the "no first use" nuclear policy that India follows depends on the circumstances in the future. "We have no first use policy regarding nuclear.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday said that the "no first use" nuclear policy that India follows depends on the circumstances in the future. "We have no first use policy regarding nuclear. It will depend on circumstances what will happen in the future," Singh said after paying homage to former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on his first death anniversary. "In Pokhran, India emerged as a nuclear power. Despite all restraints, Atal ji gave permission for the nuclear test. India was listed among those countries which have nuclear power," he added. Singh's comments came in the wake of the abrogation of Article 370 from Indian Constitution which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan has protested India's decision and is trying to internationalise the issue, but has so far been unsuccessful. India has been following the policy of no first use since the time of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who announced it after the Pokhran nuclear tests in 1998. No first use means India would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in case of a conflict. But many experts say the policy is not in sync with the geo-strategic conditions. Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy and is building a nuclear weapons programme designed to counter India. It has even miniaturised warheads for use as tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield. Comparable arsenals India has much stronger conventional armed forces than Pakistan, but both countries have comparable nuclear arsenals. Pakistan has 140-150 nuclear warheads compared to India's 130-140 warheads, according to a 2018 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). They are comparable in the sense that both have the capability to strike each other's territories and cause immense damage and massive loss of life. India's nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine "INS Arihant" became operational last year, giving the country a "nuclear triad" - the ability to launch nuclear strikes by land, air and sea. Pakistan is working on sea-launched cruise missiles to complete its own triad. Pakistan has longer-range nuclear weapons, such as the Shaheen 3 missile that can reach India’s Andaman Islands near Southeast Asia. India is developing long-range ballistic missiles able to strike targets across China. India also has concerns about China, which has a bigger military and more advanced strategic weapons. History India and Pakistan have taken different paths to develop their nuclear arsenals. India is believed to have sought nuclear capabilities after its defeat in a brief 1962 border war with China. For Pakistan, weapons experts say it was the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 that led to the independence of Bangladesh and proved a turning point for Islamabad. Since then, the countries have engaged in an arms race that has outpaced traditional nuclear rivals. (With inputs from Reuters)

'No first use' policy: History and comparison of nuclear arsenals of India, Pakistan

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday said that India follows "no first use" policy regarding nuclear weapons but said what would happen in future will depend on "circumstances".

"On the question of nuclear policy, till today, we have a policy of no-first-use. What happens in future, will depend on circumstances," he said after paying homage to late prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee at Pokhran in Rajasthan where the country conducted its second nuclear tests during the regime of the NDA government in 1998.

"In Pokhran, India emerged as a nuclear power. Despite all restraints, Atalji gave permission for the nuclear test. India was listed among those countries which have nuclear power. I paid homage to Atalji on his first death anniversary here," Singh said.

He also posted a tweet reiterating his statement.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Pokhran is the area which witnessed Atal Ji’s firm resolve to make India a nuclear power and yet remain firmly committed to the doctrine of ‘No First Use’. India has strictly adhered to this doctrine. What happens in future depends on the circumstances.
— Rajnath Singh (@rajnathsingh) <a href="https://twitter.com/rajnathsingh/status/1162276901055893504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The nuclear test was conducted in May, 1998, in Pokhran during the Vajpayee government and the "no first use" policy was enunicated by him. The policy in India's nuclear doctrine meant the country will not to use its nuclear weapon as a means of warfare unless attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons.

Singh's statement comes in the wake of abrogation of Article 370. Pakistan has shown its hostility towards India's action, raising it with the United Nations (UN) on the international level. It has, however, dealt a diplomatic setback with the UN Security Council declining to hold a formal session on Kashmir with its participation.

The UNSC has, instead, scheduled a closed-door consultation at China's insistence. The consultation will take place on Friday evening.

Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy. The country also went nuclear immediately after India conducted its tests. Pakistan in fact has used its nuclear assets as a blackmail tool that any aggression on part of India would lead to full scale war.

India, on past two occasions, has been able to call off its neighbour's nuclear bluff by organising two surgical strikes inside Pakistan. The Balakot involved use of Air Force which was first by India after 1971 war. The only time India used Air Force was during the Kargil War, but that too, in a limited capacity. Singh's statement is full of significance and any move of India in the context is akin to completely re-calibrating the nuclear doctrine.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday said that India follows "no first use" policy regarding nuclear weapons but said what would happen in future will depend on "circumstances".

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday said that India follows "no first use" policy regarding nuclear weapons but said what would happen in future will depend on "circumstances". "On the question of nuclear policy, till today, we have a policy of no-first-use. What happens in future, will depend on circumstances," he said after paying homage to late prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee at Pokhran in Rajasthan where the country conducted its second nuclear tests during the regime of the NDA government in 1998. "In Pokhran, India emerged as a nuclear power. Despite all restraints, Atalji gave permission for the nuclear test. India was listed among those countries which have nuclear power. I paid homage to Atalji on his first death anniversary here," Singh said. He also posted a tweet reiterating his statement. Pokhran is the area which witnessed Atal Ji’s firm resolve to make India a nuclear power and yet remain firmly committed to the doctrine of ‘No First Use’. India has strictly adhered to this doctrine. What happens in future depends on the circumstances. — Rajnath Singh (@rajnathsingh) August 16, 2019 × The nuclear test was conducted in May, 1998, in Pokhran during the Vajpayee government and the "no first use" policy was enunicated by him. The policy in India's nuclear doctrine meant the country will not to use its nuclear weapon as a means of warfare unless attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. Singh's statement comes in the wake of abrogation of Article 370. Pakistan has shown its hostility towards India's action, raising it with the United Nations (UN) on the international level. It has, however, dealt a diplomatic setback with the UN Security Council declining to hold a formal session on Kashmir with its participation. The UNSC has, instead, scheduled a closed-door consultation at China's insistence. The consultation will take place on Friday evening. Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy. The country also went nuclear immediately after India conducted its tests. Pakistan in fact has used its nuclear assets as a blackmail tool that any aggression on part of India would lead to full scale war. India, on past two occasions, has been able to call off its neighbour's nuclear bluff by organising two surgical strikes inside Pakistan. The Balakot involved use of Air Force which was first by India after 1971 war. The only time India used Air Force was during the Kargil War, but that too, in a limited capacity. Singh's statement is full of significance and any move of India in the context is akin to completely re-calibrating the nuclear doctrine.

India's 'no first use' nuclear policy in future will depend on circumstances: Rajnath Singh

Questioning the country&#39;s&nbsp;no first-use nuclear policy, the Indian Express reported, India&#39;s defence minister Manohar Parrikar stoked fresh controversy Thursday.

But Parrikar later clarified that&nbsp;&quot;this is my thinking&quot; and that the nuclear doctrine &quot;has not changed&quot; under any government.&nbsp;

Parrikar was speaking at the launch of Brigadier (retd) Gurmeet Kanwal&#39;s book, The New Arthashastra, in New Delhi, when he said:&nbsp;&ldquo;Why a lot of people say that India has No First-Use policy. Why should I bind myself to a&hellip; I should say I am a responsible nuclear power and I will not use it irresponsibly. This is my thinking. Some of them may immediately tomorrow flash that Parrikar says that nuclear doctrine has changed. It has not changed in any government policy but my concept, I am also an individual. And as an individual, I get a feeling sometime why do I say that I am not going to use it first. I am not saying that you have to use it first just because you don&rsquo;t decide that you don&rsquo;t use it first. The hoax can be called off.&rdquo;

A spokesperson for the defence ministry, however, later clarified that the minister was voicing a personal opinion and not that of the government.&nbsp;

India&#39;s ruling Bharatiya Janta Party had promised, in its manifesto for the 2014 elections, to &quot;study in detail India&rsquo;s nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it, to make it relevant to challenges of current times&quot;.

The Indian Express reported: &quot;India&rsquo;s NFU policy is part of its nuclear doctrine. Under the doctrine, India has a policy of credible minimum deterrence based on a &lsquo;No First Use&rsquo; posture and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. This means that India won&rsquo;t be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. In contrast, Pakistan does not have an NFU policy for its nuclear arsenal.&quot;

It added: &quot;India has always held its commitment to NFU policy as proof of it being a responsible nuclear power. In April, when US President Barack Obama suggested that India and Pakistan reduce their nuclear arsenal, the spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs said: &#39;There seems to be a lack of understanding of India&rsquo;s defence posture. Conventionally, India has never initiated military action against any neighbour. We also have a no-first use nuclear weapons policy.&#39;&quot;

Those critical of India&#39;s no first-use policy argue that the increasing stockpile of Pakistani nuclear weapons and China&#39;s expansionist designs in the region warrant a change in the doctrine, the Indian Express said. &nbsp;

It added that George Fernandes, a former defence minister of the country, had in 2003 ruled out the possibility of any change in India&#39;s nuclear doctrine. And that in 2011, BJP leader Jaswant Singh had asked that the NFU policy be repealed, but the UPA government which preceded the current dispensation decided against doing so.&nbsp;

The Indian Express reported that In response to Parrikar&#39;s remarks, the Congress party&#39;s communication in-charge Randeep Surjewala said: &quot;&ldquo;Defence minister Parrikar has no business or authority to speak in personal capacity at a public function. He reflects the thrust and intent of India&rsquo;s national security policy. If India&rsquo;s policy on NFU has to be changed, it must be decided after deliberation with the government and stated publicly. Casual, immature and off-the-cuff remarks by India&rsquo;s Defence Minister, for which he has become famous, are not in India&rsquo;s interest.&rdquo;

And that CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said: &ldquo;This is a most irresponsible comment coming from the Defence Minister. It runs against India&rsquo;s ethos of seeking a nuclear-free world. When a minister speaks, it has to be the considered opinion of the government. This statement would be taken indignantly by the rest of the world and hurt India&rsquo;s interests globally

(WION)

But he later clarified that?'this is my thinking' and that the nuclear doctrine 'has not changed' under any government

Questioning the country's no first-use nuclear policy, the Indian Express reported, India's defence minister Manohar Parrikar stoked fresh controversy Thursday. But Parrikar later clarified that "this is my thinking" and that the nuclear doctrine "has not changed" under any government. Parrikar was speaking at the launch of Brigadier (retd) Gurmeet Kanwal's book, The New Arthashastra, in New Delhi, when he said: “Why a lot of people say that India has No First-Use policy. Why should I bind myself to a… I should say I am a responsible nuclear power and I will not use it irresponsibly. This is my thinking. Some of them may immediately tomorrow flash that Parrikar says that nuclear doctrine has changed. It has not changed in any government policy but my concept, I am also an individual. And as an individual, I get a feeling sometime why do I say that I am not going to use it first. I am not saying that you have to use it first just because you don’t decide that you don’t use it first. The hoax can be called off.” A spokesperson for the defence ministry, however, later clarified that the minister was voicing a personal opinion and not that of the government. India's ruling Bharatiya Janta Party had promised, in its manifesto for the 2014 elections, to "study in detail India’s nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it, to make it relevant to challenges of current times". The Indian Express reported: "India’s NFU policy is part of its nuclear doctrine. Under the doctrine, India has a policy of credible minimum deterrence based on a ‘No First Use’ posture and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. This means that India won’t be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. In contrast, Pakistan does not have an NFU policy for its nuclear arsenal." It added: "India has always held its commitment to NFU policy as proof of it being a responsible nuclear power. In April, when US President Barack Obama suggested that India and Pakistan reduce their nuclear arsenal, the spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs said: 'There seems to be a lack of understanding of India’s defence posture. Conventionally, India has never initiated military action against any neighbour. We also have a no-first use nuclear weapons policy.'" Those critical of India's no first-use policy argue that the increasing stockpile of Pakistani nuclear weapons and China's expansionist designs in the region warrant a change in the doctrine, the Indian Express said. It added that George Fernandes, a former defence minister of the country, had in 2003 ruled out the possibility of any change in India's nuclear doctrine. And that in 2011, BJP leader Jaswant Singh had asked that the NFU policy be repealed, but the UPA government which preceded the current dispensation decided against doing so. The Indian Express reported that In response to Parrikar's remarks, the Congress party's communication in-charge Randeep Surjewala said: "“Defence minister Parrikar has no business or authority to speak in personal capacity at a public function. He reflects the thrust and intent of India’s national security policy. If India’s policy on NFU has to be changed, it must be decided after deliberation with the government and stated publicly. Casual, immature and off-the-cuff remarks by India’s Defence Minister, for which he has become famous, are not in India’s interest.” And that CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said: “This is a most irresponsible comment coming from the Defence Minister. It runs against India’s ethos of seeking a nuclear-free world. When a minister speaks, it has to be the considered opinion of the government. This statement would be taken indignantly by the rest of the world and hurt India’s interests globally (WION)

India's defence minister questions country's nuclear no first-use policy, stokes controversy

no-first-use-policy

No First Use Policy, News on No First Use Policy, stories on No First Use Policy, articles on No First Use Policy, No First Use Policy stories at Wion, No First Use Policy news, No First Use Policy latest news

no first-use-policy