No First Use (NFU) is a policy or pledge by a nuclear weapon State not to utilize its nuclear weapons against an adversary unless it be first attacked with nuclear warheads. This concept has been existing earlier in respect of chemical and biological warfare. For nuclear weapons, this pledge was first announced by China after its first nuclear explosion in October 1964. The leader of the Chinese delegation to the United Nations General Assembly ChioKuan-Hua officially stated the no first use policy of his government in 1972 as “I once again solemnly declare that at no time and under no circumstances will China be the first to use nuclear weapons.” He further continued: “If the United States and the Soviet Union really and truly want disarmament, they should commit themselves not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. This is not something difficult to do.”
Then, China’s no first use policy was largely misinterpreted. Firstly it was argued that China had then perceived two main enemies, the US and the Soviet Union (SU). Both were heavyweight nuclear powers who could annihilate China’s nuclear capability with just one preemptive strike. Hence, the first use of nuclear weapons by China would have been suicidal. Secondly, the NFU pledge and policy declaration by China acted as a moral shield against preemptive strikes by the US or SU. These hypotheses have proved wrong since China, despite having accumulated a large number of nuclear weapons. has repeatedly re-affirmed its NFU policy in 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2011 Some scepticism, as remote and unrealistic as it may appear, has arisen about China’s NFU policy in the context of India. What if China uses a nuclear device in Arunachal Pradesh which it has started claiming to be within Chinese territory?
Generally speaking the US, Russia, UK and France have announced that they would use nuclear weapons against any country in case of invasion against their territories or that of their allies and partners. The US modified its earlier policy and announced that it shall not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that have accepted the NPT and have adhered to its provisions. For states that may not be eligible for this assurance, the US may use nuclear weapons in circumstances to defend its vital interests and that of its allies and partners. The UK modified its policy in 2002 to use nuclear weapons against rogue countries where British troops are threatened with weapons of mass destruction. The NATO rejected NFU policy suggested by Germany at its summit meeting in 1999.
Pakistan does not have a No First Use policy. Its nuclear doctrine announced in 2001 by Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai specifically mentions that as Pak nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India and they will be used if: (i) India attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part of its territory (space threshold), (ii) India destroys a large part either of its land or air forces (military threshold), (iii) India proceeds to the economic strangling of Pakistan (economic threshold) and (iv) India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization or creates a large-scale internal subversion in Pakistan (domestic destabilization threshold)
India revised its 1999 policy at the meeting of the “Cabinet Committee on Security Reviews – Operationalisation of India’s Nuclear Doctrine.” held on January 4, 2003, and announced its revised NFU policy. (i) Building and maintaining a credible minimum deterrent; (ii) A posture of No First Use – nuclear weapons will only be used in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or Indian forces anywhere; (iii) Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage; (iv) Nuclear retaliatory attacks can only be authorized by the civilian political leadership through the Nuclear Command Authority; (v) Non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states but (vi) 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. It is thus clear that India’s nuclear doctrine is very comprehensive and contains all the ingredients of the US, UK, SU, France and more specifically that of China aiming for a global NFU policy effectively resulting in total disarmament.
Indeed, on 2nd April 2014 speaking at the Institute for Defense Studies & Analyses New Delhi the then Prime Minister DrManmohan Singh stated “More and more voices are speaking out today that the sole function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, should be to deter a nuclear attack. If all states possessing nuclear weapons recognize that this is so and are prepared to declare it, we can quickly move to the establishment of a global no first use. The leader of the Chinese delegation to the United Nations General Assembly has earlier in 1972 advanced the same idea and had said: “This is not something difficult to do.” The present BJP Government having announced rethinking on India’s Nuclear Doctrine has unequivocally reiterated that it will continue to maintain NFU policy. The Sino-Indian laudable aim to make the NFU a global policy may be a distant dream but it is a policy worth pursuing with zeal and determination by both countries.
The Indian Nuclear Doctrine nevertheless needs some fine-tuning in clarification in the present happy scenario that on the graceful invitation of the present Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, even the Prime Minister of Pakistan attended the oath-taking ceremony of Indian Ministers. The assertion that India’s retaliation to a first nuke strike would be massive and would inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy is likely to carry a wrong message as if India would target the civilian population in retaliation. This certainly is not the intention of India. As China has already pledged NFU, India’s retaliatory action would more likely be interpreted as applicable to Pakistan which has unfortunately drafted its nuclear doctrine specifically directing its arsenal against India. It must be remembered that any use of nuclear devices by India or Pakistan against each other would not be a story like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were no blood relations or emotional attachments between the citizens of Japan and the US. They were ethnically and culturally poles apart. But in the case of India and Pakistan, it must not be forgotten that just about 67 years ago Pakistan was carved out of greater India. The then religious matrix of the Indian population was mainly Hindus or non-Hindus whose ancestors were once Hindus in the distant past. The people on either side of the boundary, therefore, have living relatives and emotional bonds. Any attack on the civilian population would invite great emotional turmoil, sociological repercussions and internal disquiet and disruption of law and order. Notwithstanding that any such attack on the civilian population being be immoral, unwise and against the principles of war and would never be attempted, it would be worthwhile if India removes the misgiving and clarifies its motives regarding massive retaliation objectives.
