Statement — “In the event of a major attack against India or Indian forces anywhere by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.” — Cabinet Committee on Security. Conclusions: I. India possesses no biological or chemical weapons. II. A biological or chemical attack on India is likely to cause mass destruction.

Introduction / Context:The policy statement reserves nuclear retaliation for bio/chem attacks of a “major” kind. We must assess which conclusion is compelled by this deterrence posture.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Nuclear option is retained against large-scale bio/chem aggression.
• No mention of India’s own bio/chem arsenal.

Concept / Approach:Nuclear retaliation is contemplated only against threats deemed catastrophic—i.e., capable of mass destruction. Therefore II follows: such attacks are assessed as massively destructive. I introduces an unrelated inventory claim (possession/absence of bio/chem weapons) that the statement neither affirms nor denies.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Deterrence logic: nuclear threshold ↔ extreme consequences.2) Conclude II; reject I for lack of textual support.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Either/Both: add arsenal details not present. Neither: ignores the obvious severity implication.

Common Pitfalls:Misreading a policy about retaliation thresholds as a statement of current capabilities.

Final Answer:Only conclusion II follows.