Talk:No first use/Archive 1

Title change?

 * This page should be title 'No-first-use' instead of 'No first use'. WinterSpw 00:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I made a series of revisions and changes to this article, deleting redundant text, and reorganizing the categories. I removed in its entirety the section on George W. Bush, since it appeared to be of mere journalistic/trivial interest. At the end of the day, GWB will be President only until 2009. We are already aware of the U.S. policy on the first use of nuclear weapons, so including an entire section dedicated only to GWB's interactions with a lone (and marginal) figure seemed totally irrelevant.Jkp1187 (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Err...This page is interesting and I think the topic is deserving of its own page, but it seems somewhat neglected. What jumps out at me most is the reference to "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld." But...Rumsfeld got canned. -Vil



It still says it needs citations, but it looks reasonably well cited to me...

What about Israel's pledge "not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East"? --J.StuartClarke 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What a laugh!

-G


 * Well I added it anyway, with references. --J.StuartClarke 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a section on soviet policy of no first use?
Topic title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.243.41 (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was before, but it got suspiciously deleted along with the north korean references

Chinese definition of "no first use"
This is a common topic discussed on Chinese military websites - the pledge in which China stated the "no first use" policy is rather ambiguous. The way it is written (the pledge itself is written in rather unusual Chinese wording, hinting at a hidden objective behind the chosen form of language) argues that "following the use of nuclear weapons by another party, China reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons". Here, the definition of "nuclear weapons" is ambiguous to allow anything which is nuclear powered with military capability to become a candidate as a "nuclear weapon". Placed simply, if a nuclear-reactor powered Aircraft carrier is driven close to Chinese shores, or alternatively nuclear submarine of some form enters Chinese waters, by the definition given through the pledge, this is "use of "nuclear" weapons" and thus nuclear weapons may be used without "breaking any promises". Thus, the pledge itself is written rather cunningly, as there is no black-white distinguishment between conventional and nuclear warfare. For example, in the future, if the United States develops the technological capability to build a "nuclear reactor powered Humvee" (possible, thus requiring little or no fuel/gasoline) and drive it to Chinese borders, this is enough to introduce an argument in which China is allowed to commence a nuclear strike. Same goes for nuclear-powered planes, nuclear-powered troop crawlers, nuclear-powered paddleboats, even nuclear-powered toothbrushes and underwear for the extreme argument. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 01:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, can you post links to the actual Chinese wording? --JWB (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NBC equivalence
Cut from article:


 * The current Indian nuclear policy is not, strictly speaking, a "no first use" policy since it allows for the use of nuclear weapons on a state without military nuclear capability in response to a biological or chemical attack.

This statement ignores a common idea in war-planning, that the use of any weapon of mass destruction is morally equivalent to the use of any other type: "a gas is a germ is a nuke".

We should clarify whether Indian nuclear policy is part of a broader WMD policy, which equates the use of Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons. Perhaps then we could say:


 * The current Indian policy on weapons of mass destruction allows for the use of nuclear weapons on a state without military nuclear capability in response to a biological or chemical attack.

If no one objects, that's how I'd like to revise the statement. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not inclined to revise based on an unsourced assertion. First, someone should find an authoritative source on India's doctrine. NPguy (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...
What exactly is the purpose of this promise? If a conventional war becomes so dire that nuclear weapons be needed the pledged nation will almost assuredly rather use nukes than surrender. And besides... what's the punishment? -xwingsx- ( talk ) 15:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For countries that do not face existential threats (threats to their survival) of conventional attack (the P5 and India seem to fit into this category), a no first use pledge amounts to a promise not to be the first to cross the nuclear threshold. In my view this would be credible precisely because the scenario above is unrealistic.  For countries that do face existential conventional threats (arguably Pakistan and Israel), a no first use pledge would have limited credibility.  It would be useful for this article to make this point, if a reliable source can be found. NPguy (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

PAKISTAN???
WHENEVER THERE WAS A BORDER TENSION WITH INDIA PAKISTAN ALWAYS SAID THAT IT WILL USE IT NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!! PAKISTAN DOSENT SOUND CREDIBLE DUE TO IST HIGH PERSENTAGE OF TERROR CAMPS AND FUNDAMENTALISTC MADRASAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.237.32 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Knock off the caps. (It is manners and good internet etiquette to avoid Caps lock.) --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 01:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ist spelt "fundamentalistic" - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

North Korea
There was a sourced assertion about North Korean policiuy of no first use. Deleting it without reason seems partisan. It should be restored. Reference was:  the old version can still partially be read on https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/No_first_use.html It doesn't seem honest to omit such an important part of geopolitics as north korea is still technically at war including with the US. --78.52.103.203 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on No first use. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204064650/http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html to http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. 78.52.103.203 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

UK
To me it is somewhat questionable or misleading to group UK under countries who only use nuclear weapons “defensively” if UK is willing to use nuclear weapons against “rogue states” if they use WMD against british troops in the field. Is that purely defensive? The war on Iraq was not defensive and if Iraq had used WMD against british troops then -- according to this article -- the UK government would have seen itself entitled to use nuclear weapons.

In any case I think that one press article from 2003 that describes a nuclear doctrine that is not unequivocally defensive is not a sufficient source for a UK subsection in “countries that pledge to use nuclear weapons only defensively“.--78.52.103.203 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, since Fallon just said that the UK would conduct a pre-emptive nuclear strike ( https://www.rt.com/uk/385959-corbyn-fallon-strike-nuclear/ ), I think it's safe to say that it no longer belongs in the "defensive use only" category. --178.16.3.149 (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There seems to be confusion between "first use" and "first strike." The former can be considered defensive; the later preemptive. NPguy (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

North Korea, NFU or not?
As the sources say, the last statement of the North Korean government about the NFU is that the country will adopt it. So, it is correct to put the country in "Countries pledging no-first-use" paragraph, keeping the part where it is noted that they had previously threatened to use pre-emptive nuclear strike.--Mhorg (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)