Deterrence

[yossarian]

Abhiti,

Its been a pleasure reading your posts and the counter attacks. However, if you could please clarify something for me?

What constitutes the audience for your (satisfactory)deterrence? Any deterrence fails if there is a man/woman who is willing to lose all (a lot or a little then just doesn't matter). Now if the Chinese Premier turns out to be one like that, then we are talking boom boom irrespective of what arsenal we have. So does deterrence apply to such scenarios, in my opinion NO. MAD (inspite of the pun intended) applies to sanity prevailing more than madness.

So while we all might agree China-India arsenal numerics are against India, deterrence is not numerics alone. India has the deterrence and as Nrao pointed out, maybe thats what is keeping us alive. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and we have been eating it for quite a while now.

[abhiti]

Its been a pleasure reading your posts and the counter attacks. However, if you could please clarify something for me?

What constitutes the audience for your (satisfactory)deterrence? Any deterrence fails if there is a man/woman who is willing to lose all (a lot or a little then just doesn't matter). Now if the Chinese Premier turns out to be one like that, then we are talking boom boom irrespective of what arsenal we have. So does deterrence apply to such scenarios, in my opinion NO. MAD (inspite of the pun intended) applies to sanity prevailing more than madness.

You need to read this in the words of the person who started the MAD theory. I posted his speech above you will find direct answers to you question in his speech.

So while we all might agree China-India arsenal numerics are against India, deterrence is not numerics alone. India has the deterrence and as Nrao pointed out, maybe thats what is keeping us alive. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and we have been eating it for quite a while now.

The pudding we have been eating may be similar to the one we ate between 1947 and 1962. Also for the folks who claim we have been eating the pudding of nuclear deterrence need to be reminded that we didn't have nuclear weapons and capacity to deliver it for much time after 1962. So how can you eat a pudding even before it has been made

[yossarian]

The pudding we have been eating may be similar to the one we ate between 1947 and 1962. Also for the folks who claim we have been eating the pudding of nuclear deterrence need to be reminded that we didn't have nuclear weapons and capacity to deliver it for much time after 1962. So how can you eat a pudding even before it has been made

China didn't go nuclear till end 64.

Neither had nuclear weapons then, and there was NO DETERRENCE from an Indian standpoint, not in terms of nuclear weapons, but in terms of military capability.

Deterrence is not based on nuclear weapons alone. I believe deterrence has a lot to do with what you have got to lose, economic considerations (will you meet your 2020 economic goals with a war going on), social (will you be seen as an irresponsible state), and of course a minor little detail which you seem to ignore... is losing 50000 (not million) people a fair price to pay for any gain? It would be a fair price for a Ghengiz Khan... but then...

What kept them at bay after 62?

Some of the reasons stated above, the Smiling Buddha, a growing economy, a steadfast plan for growth (which they didn't want to jeapordize for anything), the border talks, India's development of delivery systems, 98 Tests...and possibly other reasons that none of us are privy too. Do remember, we fought 3 wars with Pakistan in the mean time and our Chinese friends desisted from PLAYING GOD (in spite of your claims as to how big and strong they are and they possibly need microscopes to even see us )

I strongly believe there is ONLY ONE TRUE DETERRENCE. An ABM shield which can handle more salvos than they can throw at us. Building bigger and better bombs will give us mental peace, yes, but may not actually be useful when the peace breaks. JMTC.

[negi]

This is not a correct analysis of post 62 events ; China has bigger ambitions and wishes to play a larger role globally , it has cunningly supported TSP as a nuisance against India to keep the latter preoccupied and on its toes while it has steadily channeled all its resources into all out military and economic development.Had PRC not proliferated its CHIC-4 design and M-11/Dong class missiles (directly or via NoKo) Musharraf would have thought 72 times before embarking on his Kargil misadventure and even India's response would have been different when it comes to tacking a non nuclear TSP.

[yossarian]

even India's response would have been different when it comes to tacking a non nuclear TSP.

Why assume anything different in an Indo China scenario?

[negi]

even India's response would have been different when it comes to tacking a non nuclear TSP.

Why assume anything different in an Indo China scenario?

Because nothing is common between Indo-China and Indo-Pak scenario .Ah except for one fact i.e. India is not the aggressor in both the cases.

[NRao]

This is not a correct analysis of post 62 events ; China has bigger ambitions and wishes to play a larger role globally , it has cunningly supported TSP as a nuisance against India to keep the latter preoccupied and on its toes while it has steadily channeled all its resources into all out military and economic development.Had PRC not proliferated its CHIC-4 design and M-11/Dong class missiles (directly or via NoKo) Musharraf would have thought 72 times before embarking on his Kargil misadventure and even India's response would have been different when it comes to tacking a non nuclear TSP.

Would it really matter? I would think in a nuclear exchange India would or at least would have thought about a dual response.

Besides, outside of BD, a non-nuclear status of both nations did not help India for sure.

And, a nuclear armed China - even with a non-nuclear India + a US goading it to intervene - did not even intervene in a non-nuclear manner.

Here is my position, a nuclear India has deterrence (subject to change on the other shoe falling) and a non-nuclear India also had deterrence vs. China.

[shiv]

If you look more closely the discussion is about deterrence .

Lovely. Now we are getting somewhere. I believe you disagree with me and I disagree with you views. It's as simple as that. Thank you for taking time out to make your viewpoint clear in something more than one liners.

[negi]

Would it really matter? I would think in a nuclear exchange India would or at least would have thought about a dual response.

It does ; I don't know why is there so much confusion on this topic. Let us revisit history.

India exploded a PNE in 74 and we observed until 98 there was no such big misadventure pulled by the TSP . The event in 98 was preceded by a steady proliferation cartel being run by Photochor under the watchful eye of PRC and muskrat. The new series of long range missiles Gauri and M-11 (34 delivered in 92 . saragodha airbase) had already been tested and deployed by the TSPA by the time Kargil took place (we are talking about completely tested and deployed PRC and NoKo missiles here).All in all TSP patiently bought time and returned to its old ways the moment it had the nukes and the platforms to deliver them.

And unlike India TSP had made it very clear that it did not observe any NFU stance as far as nukes are concerned and in fact this was one of the reasons (ostensible or not is arguable) for not crossing the LOC during the 98 war and I am sure same explains our stance after 26/11 attacks too.

[shiv]

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deter ... ence.shtml
Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara

No sane citizen, political leader or nation wants thermonuclear war. But merely not wanting it is not enough. We must understand the differences among actions which increase its risks, those which reduce them and those which, while costly, have little influence one way or another. But there is a great difficulty in the way of constructive and profitable debate over the issues, and that is the exceptional complexity of nuclear strategy. Unless these complexities are well understood rational discussion and decision-making are impossible.

One must begin with precise definitions. The cornerstone of our strategic policy continues to be to deter nuclear attack upon the United States or its allies. We do this by maintaining a highly reliable ability to inflict unacceptable damage upon any single aggressor or combination of aggressors at any time during the course of a strategic nuclear exchange, even after absorbing a surprise first strike. This can be defined as our assured-destruction capability.

It is important to understand that assured destruction is the very essence of the whole deterrence concept. We must possess an actual assured-destruction capability, and that capability also must be credible. The point is that a potential aggressor must believe that our assured-destruction capability is in fact actual, and that our will to use it in retaliation to an attack is in fact unwavering. The conclusion, then, is clear: if the United States is to deter a nuclear attack in itself or its allies, it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction capability.

When calculating the force required, we must be conservative in all our estimates of both a potential aggressor's capabilities and his intentions. Security depends upon assuming a worst plausible case, and having the ability to cope with it.

These are Robert McNamara's views. I disagree with them. His tenure in power in teh US oversaw a massive increase in US troops in Vietnam and, in the end when he realised it was hopeless he demanded that the troops be pulled out. The cold war was deterrence between the US and USSR. We are now looking at a more complex world.

I have no reason to change my views, having read McNamara's viewpoint. My personal view of the utter stupidity of Mcamara's viewpoint would be a philosophical discourse - unsuited for this thread. I think his views are utterly moronic.

[amit]

Shiv,

I think it's even more moronic that someone could quote a 1967 speech to explain/justify a viewpoint on deterrence at the end of the first decade of the 21st century.

[Rien]

Rien,
But, IF it is about Indian deterrence (which is what the topic of this thread seems to be) I would like to hear what you have to say on this specific topic - in a sentence or two if possible.

China's chances of attacking India with nuclear weapons is based entirely on their fear of how many Indian weapons will be left, and how powerful those weapons are. I.E 1 surviving Indian 3.3 MT is scary, but ten 30kt is a joke. Currently, they can take out every weapon with no fear. If they are fission weapons. But if they are TN's that would be a different story.

Numbers x Megatonnage. Big warheads make the most sense for killing cities(or deterrence). Small warheads are for fighting a nuclear war. Only 1-3 MT TN's make sense from the point of nuking enemy cities. Which is supposed to be official doctrine. Please be aware that Americans and Russians are planning on fighting a nuclear war, and they have over 10 000 warheads each, so that is why they have 475 and 750 kt weapons. That's still *much* bigger than 200! Yet you hear posters saying these countries have small warheads, without mentioning that they have thousands of them!

[NRao]

Negi ji,

I do not think I understand what you are trying to say - so, does India have deterrence or not? From what you have posted it seems to me that India does have - based on all the bad things TSP + Chicom have done (as listed by you) they have not been able to do much vs. India. IF at all India got the better of them in BD and they - in spite of his/their nukes - could do nothing to prevent BD (even with US help - 7th fleet and all).

All I am trying to understand is why has China not used her nuclear might for all these years. When she had ample situations to do so. That is it.

On Kargil, please refer to the statement Clinton seems to have made. India not crossing had nothing to do with TSP or her threat. It had everything to do with US negotiating a deal - part of which was India can do as she see fit to deal with the situation. I am not sure (actually I do not think) India ever felt threatened by Mush's speech of "an inch".

[shiv]

Please be aware that Americans and Russians are planning on fighting a nuclear war,

Really? When is it going to start? One person on here says that they have deterred each other but you are saying exactly the opposite. Who is correct?

[NRao]

China's chances of attacking India with nuclear weapons is based entirely on their fear of how many Indian weapons will be left, and how powerful those weapons are. I.E 1 surviving Indian 3.3 MT is scary, but ten 30kt is a joke. Currently, they can take out every weapon with no fear. If they are fission weapons. But if they are TN's that would be a different story.

Thanks.

I see two items in this response:
1) There is fear from a Chinese PoV. But you feel that they will fear under some circumstances - which is OK.
2) That they will fear IF India has TN, but certainly not If India has non-TN.

Right?

Which bring me back to my old question, why has China not used her nukes to threaten India IF China actually has such powerful weapons? (I am trying to understand - I DO NOT have answers - I am only reading tea leaves and some articles.)

Numbers x Megatonnage. Big warheads make the most sense for killing cities(or deterrence). Small warheads are for fighting a nuclear war. Only 1-3 MT TN's make sense from the point of nuking enemy cities. Which is supposed to be official doctrine. Please be aware that Americans and Russians are planning on fighting a nuclear war, and they have over 10 000 warheads each, so that is why they have 475 and 750 kt weapons. That's still *much* bigger than 200! Yet you hear posters saying these countries have small warheads, without mentioning that they have thousands of them!

Dunno.

It seems to me that China and the US have moved (NOT moving to) smaller nukes.

Besides, I still do not think we are on the same page. You talk of "fear" but do not accept (Indian?) deterrence. Then you talk of killing - destruction - but again you do not talk of deterrence.

However, it seems to me that you feel/think that India does NOT have deterrence.

[negi]

All I am trying to understand is why has China not used her nuclear might for all these years. When she had ample situations to do so. That is it.

China got what she wanted in 62 without much fuss ; and it has since then only consolidated its position .Why does it need to nuke India over night and get targeted by the world community ? And again as I said whatever nuisance it needs to instigate in India's backyard it does it via TSP or even Maoist groups which again infiltrate from BD or Nepal.The post COLD WAR world is not conducive for a full fledged conventional war it is an ideal place for carrying out proxy attacks specially via agents like TSP.

On Kargil, please refer to the statement Clinton seems to have made. India not crossing had nothing to do with TSP or her threat. It had everything to do with US negotiating a deal - part of which was India can do as she see fit to deal with the situation. I am not sure (actually I do not think) India ever felt threatened by Mush's speech of "an inch".

India crossed the International boundary in 1965 and there is no reason to believe it did not have the might to do the same in 98 , the only factor that changed was a nuclear Pakistan. US or international pressure could be applied only because TSP was no longer inferior in terms of Military might .

[abhiti]

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deter ... ence.shtml
Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara

These are Robert McNamara's views. I disagree with them. I think his views are utterly moronic.

These aren't just "views" as you trying to downplay them. These are essentially details of US deterrence policy directly and in the words of its person who put it in place. The policy of MAD initiated by McNamara US Defence Secretary had been the US policy with USSR till USSR existed. Also need I remind that McNamara (and Pentagon by extension) knows a lot more about nuclear deterrence than may be most folks in GOI today. Calling them "utterly moronic" not because they have been discredited but because "I don't agree with them" is exactly why I have been calling your writings on this topic "Shiv's theory of deterrence". Now how credible is "Shiv's theory of deterrence" vs. Robert McNamara's time tested policy is anyone's guess

[abhiti]

Which bring me back to my old question, why has China not used her nukes to threaten India IF China actually has such powerful weapons? (I am trying to understand - I DO NOT have answers - I am only reading tea leaves and some articles.)

I can only vaguely guess but them moving short range missiles to Tibet when India has absolutely no credible long range delivery capacity yet does constitute a threat. Also what part will their conventional military superiority play (especially considering Pak+China scenario).

It seems to me that China and the US have moved (NOT moving to) smaller nukes.

When you say smaller, I am guessing you still mean 100KT-300KT, right?

[shiv]

Now how credible is "Shiv's theory of deterrence" vs. Robert McNamara's time tested policy is anyone's guess

But there is no need to guess what I think of McNamara's views. They are idiotic. His successes in Vietnam speak for themselves as does his success in making sure that Russia now has no more nukes left and no longer needs to be deterred.

[abhiti]

Now how credible is "Shiv's theory of deterrence" vs. Robert McNamara's time tested policy is anyone's guess

But there is no need to guess what I think of McNamara's views. They are idiotic. His successes in Vietnam speak for themselves as does his success in making sure that Russia now has no more nukes left and no longer needs to be deterred.

That US retained his deterrence policy till USSR disintegrated is a testament itself that it survived scrutiny. As far as nuke deterrence is concerned MAD was the only game in Washington while USSR existed. US spent billions and billions of dollars operationalizing MAD and they are still keeping it. You simply dismissing it in a single line and needing to references/ no quotes is clearly shows what your writings are all about...you proposing a brand new theory mind if I call it "Shiv's theory of deterrence". That we are even discussing Shiv's theory of deterrence speaks to quality of discussion on this topic.

Anyway back to Shiv for some story time.

[abhiti]

Deterrence is not based on nuclear weapons alone.

I agree, however nuclear deterrence is the cheapest when dealing with enemy of the size of China.

and of course a minor little detail which you seem to ignore... is losing 50000 (not million) people a fair price to pay for any gain? It would be a fair price for a Ghengiz Khan... but then...

How many did they lose in Maoist revolution? Who rolled tanks on T square? How many do they execute every year?

What kept them at bay after 62? Some of the reasons stated above, the Smiling Buddha

I knew you will bring up Smilling Buddha. What about delivery systems?

I strongly believe there is ONLY ONE TRUE DETERRENCE. An ABM shield

A credible ABM shield which will work on wide swath of a large country when attacked by 100s of war heads only exists in science fiction.

[shiv]

That US retained his deterrence policy till USSR disintegrated is a testament itself that it survived scrutiny. As far as nuke deterrence is concerned MAD was the only game in Washington while USSR existed. US spent billions and billions of dollars operationalizing MAD and they are still keeping it. You simply dismissing it in a single line and needing to references/ no quotes is clearly shows what your writings are all about...you proposing a brand new theory mind if I call it "Shiv's theory of deterrence". That we are even discussing Shiv's theory of deterrence speaks to quality of discussion on this topic.

Well you may call the theory by my name but your enthusiastic participation in the discussion has certainly contributed to the quality of discussion even if you were unable to bring in anything new.

[NRao]

China got what she wanted in 62 without much fuss ; and it has since then only consolidated its position .Why does it need to nuke India over night and get targeted by the world community ? And again as I said whatever nuisance it needs to instigate in India's backyard it does it via TSP or even Maoist groups which again infiltrate from BD or Nepal.The post COLD WAR world is not conducive for a full fledged conventional war it is an ideal place for carrying out proxy attacks specially via agents like TSP.

Quite a few things here, but will stick to just one. No matter what China has done (62) and then what it could do (via others) -as you state, YET she has not managed to put India away. Besides, India can (and has) countered to well for us to call the Chinese (or Pakistani) efforts as a success. In fact, IMHO, India has been asleep at the wheels and even then China has not really managed to take advantage (I think that is changing).

More l8r

[samuel]

YET she has not managed to put India away.

Absolutely nobody in the world has been able to put Bharath "away." The Gayatri Mantra playing on Tirupati is testament to that. But they certainly have sacked, plundered, pillaged, engineered, dismembered it time and again, and we probably are one of the least safest, large countries of the world, the only with.... .... you know the rest. Perhaps the emphasis on "YET," and not on NOT is thus justified or is it?

[Manish_Sharma]

China got what she wanted in 62 without much fuss ; and it has since then only consolidated its position .Why does it need to nuke India over night and get targeted by the world community ? And again as I said whatever nuisance it needs to instigate in India's backyard it does it via TSP or even Maoist groups which again infiltrate from BD or Nepal.The post COLD WAR world is not conducive for a full fledged conventional war it is an ideal place for carrying out proxy attacks specially via agents like TSP.

Negi what did China get in '62 war? It only got few thousand squaremiles of barren land in mountains which may not be of much use. This is a question I have been asking, I asked in Newbie thread also but didn't get answered: Why did China attack India in '62?

[Amber G.]

These are essentially details of US deterrence policy directly and in the words of its person who put it in place. The policy of MAD initiated by McNamara US Defence Secretary

abhiti - Curious if you know that it is the same McNamara whose 'policy paper' were rejected down right by US President, resulting into his (McNamara's) resignation.

[abhiti]

These are essentially details of US deterrence policy directly and in the words of its person who put it in place. The policy of MAD initiated by McNamara US Defence Secretary

abhiti - Curious if you know that it is the same McNamara whose 'policy paper' were rejected down right by US President, resulting into his (McNamara's) resignation.

My understanding is that McNamara left due to differences in Vietnam era policy. But I can be wrong on it...could you elaborate further and provide some source?

[samuel]

It only got few thousand square miles of barren land in mountains which may not be of much use.

Err, Manish, can I ask you to clarify this a little...are you suggesting that it was no big deal that they were able to take something that was ours or are you saying that losing some barren land is not a big deal?

[negi]

Manish Tibbet is home to world's largest glaciers which are sources for most of the Asia's major rivers.There is lot of arid and barren land in mainland China which can be irrigated if some of these rivers can be diverted.

[Masaru]

It only got few thousand squaremiles of barren land in mountains which may not be of much use.

So why are millions being spent and lives lost daily on Siachen, not a blade of grass grows there too. Why did hundreds of soldiers gave their life on battles in the desert of Rajasthan and on the icy waste of Kargil. As well gift all these to Pakis or Chinese or who so ever fancies it! No need to have 'n' pages of discussion about n-deterrence

Why did China attack India in '62?

To teach Indians a lesson, as articulated by Mao, or to divert internal attention from internal chaos due to the 'Great Leap Forward' depending on who you want to believe. Source

Mao Zedong stated: "Rather than being constantly accused of aggression, it's better to show the world what really happens when China indeed moves its muscles. Thus, the Indian government must be taught an unforgettable lesson. " .... he said that a well-fought war "will guarantee at least thirty years of peace" with India, and determined the benefits to offset the costs.

[Manish_Sharma]

It only got few thousand square miles of barren land in mountains which may not be of much use.

Err, Manish, can I ask you to clarify this a little...are you suggesting that it was no big deal that they were able to take something that was ours or are you saying that losing some barren land is not a big deal?

No what I mean is that it didn't get all it wanted. I think it always wanted more and wants more. Not just AP but also to break india into many small parts, just like the article in people's daily.

Of course every inch lost is precious, there is no way I am suggesting it no big deal.

^^Masaru, hope above answers point raised by you too, sorry friends if my question came out like "O its no big deal if we have lost some barren land". It was not my intention. Of course the sacrifice made by soldiers in the war and in 1958 by Shri Karamchand and his policemen as explained in an article by Vivek Ahuja can never be undermined by me.

[Manish_Sharma]

Manish Tibbet is home to world's largest glaciers which are sources for most of the Asia's major rivers.There is lot of arid and barren land in mainland China which can be irrigated if some of these rivers can be diverted.

Thanks Negi.

[Manish_Sharma]

Shiv just finished going through the nti link you provided. Great collection, thank you. Four points stuck me very strongly while going through it:

1. Dr. R. Chidambaram writes the position paper which changes the policy from Rajiv administration position of late 80s that even if nuke power start negotiating reduction of weapons then india should sign CTBT to the stand of india only signing after "elimination of stockpiles by NWS".

2. Kakodakar & Sikka oppose CTBT totally, while Dr. R. Chidambaram allegedly advises the Indian CTBT negotiating in Geneva that India has the technological expertise and capability to conduct "sub-criticals" such as "hydrodynamic" and "hydronuclear" tests.

3. MMS as FM kills the planned nuclear projects budget of 144 billion rupees by reducing it almost 7 times less to 6 billion rupees. Result : instead to achieving 10,000 MW power production goal by 2000, it is revised to 3,200 MW power by 2004.
Now again same MMS becomes PM and gets so interested in india's nuclear energy production that he wants to buy American reactors for billions of dollars.

[shiv]

Why did China attack India in '62?

To teach Indians a lesson, as articulated by Mao, or to divert internal attention from internal chaos due to the 'Great Leap Forward' depending on who you want to believe. Source

Mao Zedong stated: "Rather than being constantly accused of aggression, it's better to show the world what really happens when China indeed moves its muscles. Thus, the Indian government must be taught an unforgettable lesson. " .... he said that a well-fought war "will guarantee at least thirty years of peace" with India, and determined the benefits to offset the costs.

Thx for the interesting link. I had been trying to get some cite for the "punish India" story and here it is. I have some thoughts about this - but mostly OT for this thread,

[amit]

Now again same MMS becomes PM and gets so interested in india's nuclear energy production that he wants to buy American reactors for billions of dollars.

Are you trying to say the purpose of the deal is only to buy American reactors and not Russian or French ones?

And what about nuclear fuel agreements?

Simplification of complex agreements are great but drumming down things doesn't make for erudite explanations.

[amit]

That US retained his deterrence policy till USSR disintegrated is a testament itself that it survived scrutiny. As far as nuke deterrence is concerned MAD was the only game in Washington while USSR existed. US spent billions and billions of dollars operationalizing MAD and they are still keeping it.

And so can you explain what all this has to do with India-China deterrence? I'm sorry but using sexy acronyms like MAD is just a red herring.

[Rahul M]

amit, really, the ignorance of people like you amazes me !
how dare you question the validity of MAD, (you ignorant SDRE kufr) the americans did it !

of course it is correct !

[Virupaksha]

Please be aware that Americans and Russians are planning on fighting a nuclear war,

Really? When is it going to start? One person on here says that they have deterred each other but you are saying exactly the opposite. Who is correct?

Shiv,

arent you confusing "how" they will fight to "whether" they will fight? "How" for them includes a nuclear battlefield.

Pure and simple Deterrence deals with "whether" A and B fight. But India's nuclear doctrine, deals with both, whether (NFU) and how (NFU & CMD).

[Manish_Sharma]

Now again same MMS becomes PM and gets so interested in india's nuclear energy production that he wants to buy American reactors for billions of dollars.

Are you trying to say the purpose of the deal is only to buy American reactors and not Russian or French ones?

And what about nuclear fuel agreements?

Simplification of complex agreements are great but drumming down things doesn't make for erudite explanations.

India set a target of producing 10000MW Bijlee by 2000, in '95 MMS cuts the planned budget by whopping 7 times. So target is reduced to 3200MW by 2004. Now the same MMS as PM is even ready to risk his govt. for the sake of nuclear electricity generation. He wants to make nuke generated power the high point of his achievment as PM?

[shiv]

Please be aware that Americans and Russians are planning on fighting a nuclear war,

Shiv,

arent you confusing "how" they will fight to "whether" they will fight? "How" for them includes a nuclear battlefield.

Pure and simple Deterrence deals with "whether" A and B fight. But India's nuclear doctrine, deals with both, whether (NFU) and how (NFU & CMD).

Semantic hairsplitting made on a non serious reply. My reply has the word "when". The words "whether" and "how" do not feature anywhere in my reply.

Are the Americans and Russians planning on fighting a nuclear war? The original statement makes that assertion. Do you have a take on the original assertion?

The assertion that the Americans and Russians are planning to fight a nuclear war is a different take on the subject. Planning to fight a nuclear war is totally different from planning not to fight a nuclear war which is different from not planning to fight a nuclear war