India Nuclear Tightrope: US-Russia Standoff

The escalating rhetoric and military maneuvers surrounding the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia have once again cast a shadow of Cold War-era brinkmanship over global security.¹ As the world watches these two nuclear heavyweights engage in what has been described as a “ballistic” standoff—marked by mutual accusations and the public showcasing of advanced weaponry—the question of where other nuclear powers stand becomes critically important.

For India, a major, but non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its position is a delicate and principled balancing act, rooted in its unique security requirements, its foreign policy doctrine of multi-alignment, and its historical commitment to global disarmament.²

The Doctrine of Credible Minimum Deterrence

India’s nuclear posture is fundamentally different from the two global superpowers. It is guided by the doctrine of ‘Credible Minimum Deterrence’ and a formal, though occasionally questioned, ‘No First Use’ (NFU) policy.³

• Credible Minimum Deterrence: This doctrine dictates that India’s nuclear arsenal is solely for deterrence.⁴ The size and capability of its arsenal are designed to inflict punitive retaliation that would be unacceptable to an aggressor, but not to engage in a full-scale arms race.⁵ This self-imposed restraint contrasts sharply with the “mad dash” for advanced capabilities seen in the US-Russia rivalry.
• No First Use (NFU): India has pledged not to be the first to initiate a nuclear strike, though it reserves the right to massive retaliation if deterrence fails.⁶ This commitment to NFU is a cornerstone of its responsible nuclear power status, aiming to reduce the chance of nuclear escalation. However, recent statements from some political figures have occasionally led to speculation about a potential review of this policy, particularly in response to perceived threats from chemical or biological weapons.⁷

A Call for Non-Discriminatory Global Disarmament

Historically, India has been a vocal proponent of universal, non-discriminatory, and verifiable nuclear disarmament.⁸ This commitment, however, is a key reason why it has refused to sign the NPT or the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which it views as fundamentally flawed because they formalize a distinction between “nuclear haves” (the P5) and “nuclear have-nots.”⁹

India’s position on the current standoff is therefore consistent:

• Condemnation of Nuclear Threat: India has consistently stressed that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.¹⁰ This principle was notably reiterated in its diplomatic efforts during its presidency of the G20, urging major powers to de-escalate.
• Focus on Multilateralism: New Delhi believes the long-term solution lies not in bilateral arms control (like the now-strained US-Russia treaties) but in a comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Convention within a multilateral, global framework.¹¹
• Rejection of the Arms Race: India views the resurgence of a nuclear arms race between the US and Russia/China with concern, as it directly undermines global non-proliferation norms and increases the risk of miscalculation.

The Balancing Act: Multi-Alignment in Action

In geopolitical terms, India’s foreign policy of “multi-alignment” allows it to maintain strong strategic and defense ties with both the United States and Russia, even as they face off.¹²

This unique positioning means that while New Delhi is gravely concerned by the nuclear brinkmanship, it avoids choosing sides in the direct confrontation. Instead, it positions itself as a responsible emerging global power—one that is both capable of defending itself with nuclear weapons and deeply committed to preventing their use worldwide.¹³

Conclusion

India stands firmly outside the escalating nuclear rivalry, guided by a self-imposed restraint and a principled demand for global nuclear equality. For New Delhi, the US-Russia ‘ballistic’ rhetoric serves as a potent reminder of the inherent instability of a world fractured by nuclear competition. Its primary diplomatic goal remains to lower the global nuclear temperature and push for a verifiable, non-discriminatory framework that secures the entire planet from the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.