I think there may be a misunderstanding here. What is being discussed here is the feasibility of global nuclear disarmament.
India's original reason for acquiring nuclear weapons was the PRC's nuclear deterrent, and spurred on by its subsequent leakage to Pakistan.
Obviously unilateral Indian nuclear disarmament without a change in the regional environment is impossible.
Both Russia and the PRC (and their clients) would ultimately follow the Americans in to global nuclear disarmament *if* the Americans were committed. The Americans toyed with the idea in the early 1990s, but were too complacent to bother making such a fundamental shift.
US wilingness to think radically about comprehensively ending reliance on nuclear weapons for security was actually *higher* in the 1980s than after the Cold War.
Nuclear weapons are not something that most professional military officers are fond of. On the whole they steal money from conventional forces, and the result are weapon systems that to all intents and purposes can not be used, leaving them less prepared for the kinds of wars they end up fighting, or are likely to fight. You would be surprised how many professional military officers around the world (even in some very unlikely places) support global nuclear disarmament.
The only exceptions are armed forces that face a *massive*, *conventional* disadvantage against the enemy, where you tend to find a somewhat higher proportion of those favour nuclear weapons - e.g. NATO in the Cold War facing the Warsaw Pact, and Israeli Defence Forces facing the Arabs before 1978.
In the subcontinent it tends to be the PA far, far more than the IA that sees nuclear weapons as essential to national survival given the Indian conventional advantage and Pakistan's disadvantageous geography.
Which is precisely why political leadership in all countries concerned will never do more than move to the brink of confrontation - threats, maneuvering, and proxy war rather than conventional conflict. India has not fought a conventional inter-state war since 1971 (or should that be 1974) - interesting isnt it?Any future wars involving India are HIGHLY likely to turn nuclear.
This takes us back to the whole issue of why nuclear weapons have not been used in 63 years (although they have been seriously considered a number of times), and why nuclear weapons are political rather than military in nature.
Military professionals all agree that fighting large irregular insurgencies is a qualitatively *different* kind of war from conventional conflicts, one that requires very different tactics and strategy.
But combat is combat when you come down to it. I'd like you to meet and talk to any of the the tens of thousands of Soviet or American (or for that matter Indian) veterans who were in intense firefights that sometimes lasted days, who saw fellow soldiers get hit, or exhibit valour in the face of intense fire that what they endured wasnt 'a real war'. Please do not take the armchair generals view that only battles between conventional armies at brigade level and above qualify as combat. It is fundamentally demeaning to all combat veterans, besides being out of touch with reality.