There are several strands to the opposition arguments. The first one comes from those opposed to India's acquisition of nuclear capability. Nato's destruction of Yugoslavia is evidence enough of what great powers can do to countries they consider inimical to their interests. US spokesmen have been sceptical about China being the reason for our going nuclear, pointing out that China has been a nuclear power for several decades now. True, but then we too, for all practical purposes, enjoyed the protection of the Soviet nuclear umbrella.

With the demise of the Soviet Union, we had no choice but to reformulate our strategy. The second argument is the old one about the countrynot being able to afford nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons and missiles and increased fire power must go hand in hand with reduced manpower in the defence forces. In any case, as Kargil demonstrates, there is no option.

The third argument is that the release of the document was timed to boost the BJP's chances in the elections. If it wants kudos for its nuclear policy, the party can point to last year's tests, and the document on nuclear doctrine is hardly necessary.

And the fourth argument is that we should not have formulated a policy at all, in the interests of friendship with the US. Surely that goes against all norms of transparency. Unlike countries like China, in a democracy we need to debate such matters before they become policy.