Revision summary
Nuclear weapons can erase a city; deterrence is the threat of surviving second-strike punishment. India’s 2019 picture is credible minimum deterrence, declared NFU, triad, and SFC under political control. The statement is strong against a rational nuclear peer; missile defence is not a full substitute. Deterrence fails against non-State actors with no address, and it can license proxy war under a nuclear shadow. Treaties and accident-proofing remain other tracks; the bomb does not replace conventional and police tools.
Model answer
Introduction
- A nuclear weapon is a genocidal instrument: one city-kill can erase a people in minutes. The statement claims that the only workable reply is nuclear deterrence — the threat of unbearable second-strike punishment that makes first use irrational. The claim is powerful for great-power peace after 1945. It is not a complete map: deterrence is a political bargain, not a physics law, and it does not police terror, accident, or a sub-conventional war under the nuclear shadow.
Body
What nuclear deterrence is
- Deterrence is not the daily use of the bomb; it is a survivable second-strike force that can still punish after a first blow.
- India’s doctrine of credible minimum deterrence (CMD) and, as of the 2019 paper, a declared no-first-use (NFU) posture, tries to keep the arsenal a last political instrument under civilian control (Strategic Forces Command).
- A triad — land missiles, air delivery, and a sea-based leg (SSBN) — raises the cost of a disarming strike, which is the engineering of deterrence.
- Mutually assured destruction among nuclear peers is ugly ethics and, historically, a brake on a third world war among those peers.
Why the statement calls it the “only” alternative
- Conventional armies cannot reliably intercept every missile; missile defence is leaky and expensive.
- A world of one-sided nuclear monopoly tempts coercion; a second centre of punishment restores a grim equality.
- Disarmament treaties (NPT, CTBT politics) have not abolished existing arsenals; while bombs exist, States that fear genocide-from-the-air will keep a deterrent.
Analytical limits — it is not the only tool
- Deterrence assumes rational, communicating governments; it fails against a suicidal non-State actor who has no return address, and it is brittle in accident, misread radar, or unauthorised launch.
- The stability-instability paradox: a nuclear stalemate can license more proxy war, terror, and grey-zone probes because the top of the ladder is frozen.
- Arms races, hair-trigger alerts, and vertical proliferation raise the genocidal stockpile even while they “keep the peace.”
- Humanitarian and legal tracks (NPT Article VI, later TPNW among non-possessors) remain the other alternative: reduce and eventually prohibit, even if that path is slow.
- For India, the bomb does not replace a strong conventional force, border management, or counter-terror police; those sit below the nuclear rung.
- The statement is therefore half-right: against another nuclear State, deterrence is the least-bad shield. It is not a substitute for diplomacy, accident-proofing, or the long disarmament file.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD N[Nuclear weapon] --> G[Genocidal city kill] D[Second strike CMD triad] --> X[Deters first use] SFC[SFC civilian control NFU] --> D P[Stability-instability] --> T[Proxy terror below rung] A[Accident misread] --> R[Deterrence brittle] L[NPT diplomacy] --> Shrink[Long disarmament path]
Conclusion
Nuclear weapons are genocidal; among nuclear States, a survivable second strike (CMD, triad, SFC, NFU as declared in 2019) is the practical brake on first use. It is not the only alternative in a full sense: non-State terror, accident, and proxy war sit outside that bargain, and treaties still aim to shrink the stockpile. Deterrence buys time; it does not redeem the weapon.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
How far can social media be utilized as a significant tool in strengthening national security? Explain.
Next question in the 2019 paper (Q13). View answer →
-
Does deterrence make nuclear weapons morally acceptable?
No. It is a grim brake among States. The weapon remains genocidal; doctrine only tries to stop first use.
-
Can nuclear weapons stop cross-border terrorism?
No. They deter a nuclear first strike. Terror and proxy war need police, intelligence, and conventional tools.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2020 · Q18 · UPGS3 · 12 marks
Describe in detail the issues of nuclear proliferation and the existing control mechanism. -
2020 · Q20 · UPGS3 · 12 marks
At present, in emerging security challenges, how can nuclear weapons be advantageous in India's security management? Explain. -
2019 · Q7 · UPGS3 · 8 marks
What are the causes of industrial sickness in India? Give suitable suggestions to overcome the problem. -
2019 · Q17 · UPGS3 · 12 marks
Explain the challenges of food security in India. How can they be removed? Explain. -
2018 · Q8 · UPGS3 · 8 marks
Discuss the corrective strategies needed to win the Left Wing Extremism (LWE) doctrine affected citizens back into the mainstream of social and economic growth. -
2018 · Q14 · UPGS3 · 12 marks
“Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are the drivers of economic growth and employment proliferation in India.” Examine this statement. -
2018 · Q18 · UPGS3 · 12 marks
Discuss the challenges of National Security in the age of Globalization. -
2018 · Q20 · UPGS3 · 12 marks
Write a note on the challenges and their solutions for Law and Order in Uttar Pradesh at the present time.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2019 · UPGS3 · 8 marks
Explain with examples the role of science and technology in enhancing national power.
Science and technology in daily life
National power is military, economic, and legitimacy capacity; S&T now sits in all three. Nuclear and space programmes illustrate strategic autonomy after 1998 and ISRO/NavIC. Agronomy and pharma cut food and health vulnerability. Digital rails and IT enlarge fiscal reach and export skill. Power follows organised use of knowledge, not laboratory prestige alone.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2019 · UPGS3 · 8 marks
Analyse corruption as a threat to internal security.
Internal security
Internal security needs order, borders, and public consent; corruption attacks all three. Bribes move arms, narcotics, and wanted persons through police and customs posts. Graft in recruitment and procurement creates insiders and hollow equipment. Lost trust in FIR and welfare is recruited by crime and extremist networks. Lokpal, CVC, DBT, e-procurement, and fast uniformed trials are security tools, not only ethics.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2019 · UPGS3 · 8 marks
'Armed Forces Special Powers Act' of the Parliament of India has come under criticism by the States as being draconian and sometimes as unconstitutional. Examine analytically.
Economic planning and NITI Aayog
AFSPA 1958 notifies a disturbed area and gives armed forces fire, search, and arrest powers. Section 6 prior sanction is criticised as de facto immunity. States say law and order is theirs, yet the Army overlays policing for years. NPMHR 1997 upheld the Act with review and dos-and-don’ts; EEVFAM 2016 denied encounter immunity. Jeevan Reddy 2005 found the Act too sweeping; validity on paper is not the same as justice on the ground.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.