Participate in Wiki Loves Earth India 2016 Photo contest

Upload Photos of Natural Heritage sites of India to help Wikipedia & win
fantastic Prizes
Check out the rules here

No first use
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No first use (NFU) 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. Earlier, the
concept had also been applied to chemical and biological warfare.

China declared its NFU policy in 1964, and has since maintained this policy. India articulated its
policy of no first use of nuclear weapons in 2003.[1]

NATO has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy,[2] arguing that preemptive nuclear
strike is a key option, in order to have a credible deterrent that could compensate for the
overwhelming conventional weapon superiority enjoyed by the Soviet Army in the Eurasian land
mass.[citation needed] In 1993, Russia dropped a pledge given by the former Soviet Union not to use
nuclear weapons first.[3] In 2000, a Russian military doctrine stated that Russia reserves the right
to use nuclear weapons "in response to a large-scale conventional aggression".[4] This is because
the balance of forces was reversed, NATO now is enjoying a clear superiority in conventional
weapons.[citation needed]

Contents
 1 Countries pledging no-first-use

o 1.1 China
 o 1.2 India

o 1.3 North Korea

 2 Countries pledging to use nuclear weapons only defensively

o 2.1 Russia

o 2.2 United Kingdom

o 2.3 United States

o 2.4 Pakistan

o 2.5 Israel

 3 See also

 4 References

 5 Further reading

 6 External links

Countries pledging no-first-use

China

Main articles: China and weapons of mass destruction and People's Liberation Army Rocket
Force

China[5] became the first nation to propose and pledge NFU policy when it first gained nuclear
capabilities in 1964, stating "not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any
circumstances". During the Cold War, China decided to keep the size of its nuclear arsenal small
rather than compete in an international arms race with the United States and the Soviet Union.[6]
[7]
China has repeatedly re-affirmed its no-first-use policy in recent years, doing so in 2005, 2008,
2009 and again in 2011. China has also consistently called on the United States to adopt a no-
first-use policy, to reach a NFU agreement bilaterally with China, and to conclude an NFU
agreement among the five nuclear weapon states. The United States has repeatedly refused these
calls.[8][9][10][11]

India

Main articles: India and weapons of mass destruction and Nuclear Command Authority (India)
India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear
doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government
released a draft of the doctrine[12] which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence
and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only". The document also maintains that India
"will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation
should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorise the use of nuclear weapons would be made
by the Prime Minister or his 'designated successor(s)'.[12] According to the NRDC, despite the
escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001–2002, India remained committed to its
nuclear no-first-use policy.[13]

A speech by India's then NSA Shivshankar Menon at National Defence College in New Delhi on
October 21, 2010 changed the wording from "no first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear
weapon states",[14] although some argued that this was not a substantive change but "an innocent
typographical or lexical error in the text of the speech."[15] India’s current PM Modi has in the run
up to the recent general elections reiterated commitment to no first use policy.[16] In April 2013
Shyam Saran, convener of the National Security Advisory Board, affirmed that regardless of the
size of a nuclear attack against India, be it a tactical nuclear weapon or a strategic nuclear
weapon, India will retaliate massively.[17] This was in response to reports that Pakistan had
developed a tactical battlefield nuclear weapon, in an attempt to nullify an Indian "no first use"
retaliatory doctrine.[18]

North Korea

Main article: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

During the 7th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea in 2016, supreme leader Kim Jong-un
stated that North Korea would "not use nuclear weapons first unless aggressive hostile forces use
nuclear weapons to invade on our sovereignty". [19] However, just two months prior, North Korea
threatened a preemptive attack against the United States using nuclear weapons.[20]

Countries pledging to use nuclear weapons only defensively

See also: Mutual assured destruction

Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States,[21] and France[citation needed] say they will
use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or
other attack against their territory or against one of their allies. Historically, NATO military
strategy, taking into account the numerical superiority of Warsaw Pact conventional forces,
assumed that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would have been required in defeating a Soviet
invasion.[22][23]

At a NATO summit in April 1999, Germany proposed that NATO adopt a no-first-use policy, but
the proposal was rejected.[24]

Russia
Russia describes its entire military doctrine as defensive (see Military doctrine of 2010). With
regard to nuclear weapons specifically, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons

 in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it
or its allies, and also

 in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very
existence of the state is threatened. [25]

The new military doctrine of 2014 does not depart from this stance. [26]

United Kingdom

In March 2002, British defence secretary Geoff Hoon stated that the UK was prepared to use
nuclear weapons against "rogue states" such as Iraq if they ever used "weapons of mass
destruction" against British troops in the field.[27] This policy was restated in February 2003.[28]

United States

The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it "reserves the right to
use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear
weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010.[29] The
2010 Nuclear Posture review reduces the role of U.S. nuclear weapons, stating that

"The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons
exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners."

The U.S. doctrine also includes the following assurance to other states:

"The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons
states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation
obligations."[29]

For states eligible for this assurance, the United States would not use nuclear weapons in
response to a chemical or biological attack, but states that those responsible for such an attack
would be held accountable and would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military
response. Even for states not eligible for this assurance, the United States would consider the use
of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United
States or its allies and partners. The Nuclear Posture Review also notes:

"It is in the U.S. interest and that of all other nations that the nearly 65-year record of nuclear
non-use be extended forever."[29]

This supersedes the doctrine of the Bush Administration set forth in "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear
Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The new doctrine envisions commanders requesting presidential
approval to use nuclear weapons to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using
weapons of mass destruction.[30] The draft also includes the option of using nuclear weapons to
destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

Pakistan

Pakistan refuses to adopt a "no-first-use" doctrine, indicating that it would strike India with
nuclear weapons even if India did not use such weapons first. Pakistan's asymmetric nuclear
posture has significant influence on India's decision ability to retaliate, as shown in 2001 and
2008 crises, when non-state actors carried out deadly terrorist attacks on India, only to be met
with a relatively subdued response from India. A military spokesperson stated that "Pakistan's
threat of nuclear first-use deterred India from seriously considering conventional military
strikes."[31]

Pakistan's National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz defended the policy of first use.[32] Aziz stated
that Pakistan's first use doctrine is entirely deterrent in nature. He explained that it was effective
after the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and argued that if Pakistan had a no-first use policy, there
would have been a major war between the two countries.[32]

Israel

Although Israel does not officially confirm or deny having nuclear weapons, the country is
widely believed to be in possession of them. Its continued ambiguous stance puts it in a difficult
position since to issue a statement pledging 'no first use' would confirm their possession of
nuclear weapons.

Israel has said that it "would not be the first country in the Middle East to formally introduce
nuclear weapons into the region."[33]

If Israel's very existence is threatened, some speculate that Israel would use a "Samson Option,"
a "last resort" deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons, should the State
of Israel be substantially damaged and/or near destruction.[34][35][36]

See also
 Nuclear disarmament

 Limited first strike

References
1. http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2003/rjan2003/04012003/r040120033.html.
Retrieved 2014-07-04. Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. NATO's Nuclear Weapons: The Rationale for 'No First Use' | Arms Control
Association - July/August 1999 - Jack Mendelsohn

3. Schmemann, Serge (November 4, 1993). "Russia Drops Pledge of No First Use of

Atom Arms". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 January 2012.

4. No First Use of Nuclear Weapons meeting: paper by Yuri Fedorov, 'Russia's

Doctrine on the Use of Nuclear Weapons' - Pugwash Meeting no. 279 London, UK, 15–
17 November 2002

5. "Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: Issues: Policies: No First Use Policy".

Nuclearfiles.org. Retrieved 2013-04-30.

6. "No-First-Use (NFU)". Nuclear Threat Initiative. Archived from the original on

2010-01-25.

7. "Statement on security assurances issued on 5 April 1995 by the People’s

Republic of China" (PDF). United Nations. 6 April 1995. S/1995/265. Retrieved 20
September 2012.

8. Chinese nuclear forces, 2010. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

9. Tim Johnson, McClatchy Newspapers (2009-01-20). "China renews pledge of 'no

first use' of nukes | McClatchy". Mcclatchydc.com. Retrieved 2013-04-30.

10. "China states 'no first use' nuke policy". UPI.com. 2009-01-20. Retrieved 2013-
04-30.

11. "China Security". Chinasecurity.us. Retrieved 2013-04-30.

12. "Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine".
Indianembassy.org. Archived from the original on February 4, 2012. Retrieved 30 April
2013.

13. [shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/.../08_chapter%204.pdf A Rani

(2013)]

14. http://indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/2010/newsDetails211010n.php

15. [1]

16. http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/uk-india-election-nuclear-
idINKBN0D20QB20140416
17. Bagchi, Indrani. "Even a midget nuke strike will lead to massive retaliation, India
warns Pak - The Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2013-04-
30.

18. "Analysis: New Pakistani Tactical Nuclear Weapons - Implications And

Ramifications". Space Daily. 2013-02-16.

19. "Kim Jong Un Says Pyongyang Won't Use Nukes First; Associated Press".
http://abcnews.go.com/. 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07. External link in |
publisher= (help)

20. "North Korea threatens nuclear strike over U.S.-South Korean".

http://www.cnn.com/. 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-05-22. External link in |publisher=
(help)

21. d'Ancona, Matthew (26 October 2003). "Pentagon wants 'mini-nukes' to fight
terrorists - Telegraph". London: Julian Coman in Washington. Retrieved 2007-09-14.

22. The East-West Strategic Balance. 1982.

23. Healy, Melissa (October 3, 1987). "Senate Permits Study for New Tactical
Nuclear Missile". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-08-08.

24. "Germany Raises No-First-Use Issue at NATO Meeting | Arms Control

Association". Armscontrol.org. Retrieved 2013-04-30.

25. "Voyennaya doktrina Rossiyskoy Federatsii" Военная доктрина Российской

Федерации [Military doctrine of the Russian Federation]. scrf.gov.ru (in Russian).
Moscow: Security Council of the Russian Federation. 2010-06-25 [presidential decree
2010-06-25]. Archived from the original on 2011-05-04. Note: the same URL is used for
various revisions with different presidential decree dates.

26. Military doctrine of the Russian Federation of 2014 [2] paragraph 27

27. "BBC News - UK 'prepared to use nuclear weapons'". 20 March 2002. Archived
from the original on 2002-10-20. Retrieved 2007-09-14.

28. "BBC NEWS - UK restates nuclear threat". BBC News. 2 February 2003.
Retrieved 2007-09-14.

29. Nuclear Posture Review Report, U.S. Department of Defense, April 2010.

30. "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" (PDF).

 31. Narang, Vipin (January 2010). "Pakistan's Nuclear Posture: Implications for
South Asian Stability" (PDF). Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs Policy Brief. Retrieved 4 January 2013.

32. Boies,, Mary McInnis. "Promoting U.S.-Pakistan Relations: Future Challenges

and Opportunities". Council of Foreign Relations. Retrieved 6 October 2014.

33. "Israel’s Nuclear Program and Middle East Peace". Lionel Beehner. February
10, 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-03.

34. Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign
Policy, Random House, 1991, pp. 42, 136-137, 288-289.

35. Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Columbia University Press, 1998, pp. 2, 7,
341.

36. Avner Cohen, “Israel's Nuclear Opacity: a Political Genealogy,” published in The
Dynamics of Middle East Nuclear Proliferation, pp. 187-212, edited by Steven L.
Spiegel, Jennifer D. Kibbe and Elizabeth G. Matthews. Symposium Series, Volume 66,
The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001.

Further reading
 Rhona MacDonald: Nuclear Weapons 60 Years On: Still a Global Public Health Threat.
In: PLoS Medicine. 2(11)/2005. Public Library of Science, e301, ISSN 1549-1277

 Harold A. Feiveson, Ernst Jan Hogendoorn: No First Use of Nuclear Weapons. In: The
Nonproliferation Review. 10(2)/2003. The Center for Nonproliferation Studies,
ISSN 1073-6700

External links
 Document of nuclear doctrine of India

 Andrew Yeh, "China Acts to Ease Fears over N-arms Policy," Financial Times, July 25,
2005

 Publication of US guidelines in nuclear operations

Categories:

 Nuclear strategies

 International law
  Foreign policy doctrines of India

Navigation menu
 Not logged in

 Talk

 Contributions

 Create account

 Log in

 Article

 Talk

 Read

 Edit

 View history

 Main page

 Contents

 Featured content

 Current events

 Random article

 Donate to Wikipedia

 Wikipedia store

Interaction

 Help

 About Wikipedia
  Community portal

 Recent changes

 Contact page

Tools

 What links here

 Related changes

 Upload file

 Special pages

 Permanent link

 Page information

 Wikidata item

 Cite this page

Print/export

 Create a book

 Download as PDF

 Printable version

Languages

 Deutsch

 Русский

Edit links

 This page was last modified on 30 May 2016, at 12:19.

 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
 Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.

 Privacy policy

 About Wikipedia

 Disclaimers

 Contact Wikipedia

 Developers

 Cookie statement

 Mobile view