The term ‘national security’ is a broad concept and its remit goes beyond military power. Other elements of national power, including geography, geostrategic environment, economy, diplomacy, demography, and most importantly, the leadership play equally important roles in strengthening national security interests. No single element of national power can alone guarantee safeguarding of national interests.
Nuclear weapons are a vital part of Pakistan’s military strategy. They have not only helped neutralise the military disadvantage as a result of the increasing conventional disparity vis-à-vis India, but have also prevented several wars in the region. In the first 25 years of its existence, Pakistan fought three full-scale wars with India, which eventually led to its dismemberment in 1971. In the following 40 years since work on the nuclear weapons programme started and subsequently when Pakistan acquired nuclear capability, there have been no wars between the two neighbours, except for the 1999 Kargil crisis that does not fall under the category of a conventional war.
Due to the existence of an effective nuclear deterrence, India, despite having a qualitative and quantitative edge in conventional military hardware, was restrained from waging wars in 1985-86 (Brasstacks), 1990 (Kashmir uprising), 1999 (Kargil conflict), 2001-02 (military stand-off), and 2008 (Mumbai attacks). From the economic perspective as well, the cost of three wars far outweighs the money spent on developing and maintaining nuclear weapons capability.
Contrary to the ‘engineered misperceptions’, the acquisition of nuclear deterrence have in fact reduced the imperative for maintaining conventional military parity vis-à-vis India, thus significantly lowering defence expenditures.
Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence was conceived with a focus on deterring future wars with India. It does not take into account the multitude of internal and external threats being faced by it today. In order to transform its threat perception from being mainly India-specific, Pakistan needs to redefine its national objectives that must be consistent with its national power potential. Nevertheless, existence of nuclear capability does provide inherent strength and guarantee that the country cannot be treated like states, which do not have the military means to defend themselves.
The safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons has been a focus of international attention especially after 9/11. Several Western scholars continue to churn out scenarios depicting Pakistan as a fragile state, incapable of handling its nuclear assets.
While these concerns are mainly politically motivated, nevertheless, Pakistan has put in place an effective command and control system. Over 20,000 people are guarding Pakistan’s nuclear assets to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. Likewise, the system also caters for all possible external threats to obviate the likelihood of damage or sabotage.
The history of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme is a story of national resilience and tremendous sacrifices. Safeguarding it against external threats — both intellectual and physical — is a national responsibility.
Nuclear weapons combined with other elements of national power are an instrument of policy to safeguard national security interests. Possession of nuclear weapons offers significant edge in terms of enhanced political stature and diplomatic relations. It is up to the state and the leadership to formulate a strategy to exploit this potential.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 28th, 2012.
COMMENTS (43)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1729137363-0/Liam-Payne-fans-(1)1729137363-0-165x106.webp "article")
@Babloo: Though i agree with most part of your comment but Kashmir is the most peaceful state in India??? Oh sweet moses, either you are actually blind, or you choose to stay blind or your media wants you to have one sided view. Cuz we see everyday, with evidence in form of pictures and videos, the violence that goes on in Kashmir. You are very fond of making comments in Pakistani newspapers on Pakistan's issue yet how ignorant you are about things going on in your own country. Shows how 'objective' you are and though i'm a Pakistani but i still used to think you made a lot of sense. Now i see it's just hot air and nothing more. If you can be so objective in criticising Pakistan you should atleast have the good sense to have a complete picture and be objective in your view of your own country as well. Wake up and smell the coffee bro.
I am sorry to see that The Express Tribune chose not to publish the concluding part of my comment. But, of course, I respect their editorial privilege. A country’s "political stature and diplomatic relations" derive from much more than just nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons and missiles do not add up to much power in actual terms. Such power needs to be backed by economic soundness and an industrial-commercial base which contributes to the GDP. We know that in spite of a stupendous array of nuclear weapons and missiles USSR broke because its leaders during 1917-90 neglected to build an adequate economic base. Today Russia is far from being even a pale shadow of the Former USSR. Thanks.
@Cynical: "It’s clear you don’t like their views, but then can’t contradict them either and in frustration get personal."
Obviously, your own views also seem to differ from that of John B and BlackJack on this issue and yet you speak up for them on this issue - which is really a personal attack by Naeem unrelated to the substance of their opinion.
Good for you. I have personally specifically disagreed with your opinion earlier on but your ability to separate disagreement in opinion from dislike of person is one that I salute you for. Cheers.
@Naeem Salik
I am sure both @BlakJack and @John B are more than capable of a fitting reply to your cribbing about their moniker.But here's my two cents.
It seems 'form' rather than 'content' is more important to you.It's the stand they (or for that matter all who comment on these pages) take, the views they express should be of concern; not the names they use to post it.
It's clear you don't like their views, but then can't contradict them either and in frustration get personal.
Now that bit about 'moral courage'. There are more serious issues calling upon one's moral courage than cribbing about the names one use to post his/her comment.Think about oppression of women for a start.
Good analytical piece there, Mr. Sultan @ Mr. Ali Mustafa, I believe you should write on similar lines and get published. Nice comment.
"Nevertheless, existence of nuclear capability does provide inherent strength and guarantee that the country cannot be treated like states, which do not have the military means to defend themselves." For sure. The drones raining missiles and the Abbottabad raid are a testimony to it. Need we say more to daydreamers like the author?
Those who do not have the courage to write their real names and use pseudonyms like Black Jack and John B etc should be ashamed at commenting on others who at least have the moral courage to express their views in their own names.
@ALi Mustafah, I wish i knew that much english so i can write like that any way u r great sir we love u.
I think all are forgetting here the fact that India conducted its nuclear test first. Regardless of the fact whether it was China or Pakistan specific, the strategic balance had tilted and the subsequent comments by L.K Advani about even taking Pakistan's side of the Kashmir resonated hard in the 2 weeks before Pakistan had to reply. It makes the case clear of India's territorial aggression against Pakistan. It was only after Pakistan's test that talks of peace started, else wouldn't have as evident from;
All those who don't believe that nuclear weapons reined stability must re-read this
The instability in Pakistan is not at all due to nuclear weapons but of going on a single path of military security; economic, environmental, educational securities etc largely ignored. Blaming nuclear weapons absolves the mal-governance and lack of foresight by leadership on ground. Nuclear weapons AREN'T MEANT to end load-shedding, cheapen the bread, protect from internal threats etc... it is meant to protect from another states conventional attack via deterrence; building stability in the long run. Nothing more nothing less. Its neither the panacea to all ailments; nor should it be blamed for not solving them.
@Batman: Indian Netzens are making the international borders meaningless.Netzens do not need visas and passports to cross borders. Please read any Pakistani newspaper and see how much of its content indirectly or directly carries news about India. Open discourse is the only way to remove misconceptions of each other and stereotyping.
A well articulated article.
Nuclear weapons possession by Pakistan is a factor of stability in the region from its perspective. Nuclear weapons are here to stay for a foreseeable future in South Asia. The trajectory of the discussion now should be how to maintain the state of stability in the region in the backdrop of emerging regional and extra regional challenges.
More over, serious policy questions and future of Pakistan's nuclear deterrence must be evaluated. E.g. How to strengthen Pakistan's nuclear diplomacy in international arena, utility of declaring a formal nuclear doctrine, command and control experiences and related organizational achievements and challenges, role of strategic deterrence in foreign policy, the state of strategic stability in the region keeping in view East - West threat spectrum, challenges in the making etc etc......
What's with indian obsession with Pakistan? So many of them trolling almost all Pakistani news websites.
Let Indians crib and complain, here's wishing all proud Pakistani brothers and sisters a very prosperous, peaceful and safe Youm-e-Takbeer.
Dont worrymy indians neighbours we are not gonna collapsed God willing and dont wish for any merge with india this was the Nehru and Gnadhi wishes too sixty years ago but does not fullfilled. this nation is revolutionist who knows they become most powerfull peoples on earth
Dear Mr Adil Sultan, This presentation can at best rank as an interesting point of view. It relies on a factor of doubtful value: Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as a factor that prevented wars with India after 1971 – you have counted five specific instances when India did not launch an attack on Pakistan. India never launched an attack in Pakistan during 1947-1971 either: all wars were started by Pakistan and lost by Pakistan. There is copious writing on the subject by authors around the world. No one ever accused India of starting the wars of 1947-8, 1965, or 1971. In each of these cases India was obliged to respond after Pakistan started operations against India. There is a danger inherent in your argument that India was deterred by Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from starting wars against Pakistan on five different occasions in the subsequent period. Perhaps India’s patience has been tried a little too much by events like Mumbai 26/11. To be concluded.
American defeat in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran Tantra mean they should abandon there Nuc det....?????? Or Russian defeat in diffrent places . the thing in these nuc weapons are qurantee no one dare to attack your homeland...
@Rajeev Nidumolu, "The collapse of state will be by implosion when it cannot meet the basic needs of majority of its own citizens and diverts money into armaments and grandiose projects" India must be pretty close to a collapse then.
I think BlackJack nailed it; best post of the year IMO. You sir/ma'am are correct in your assertion that the Pakistani Army and the government, has continued to feed the public an idea that nuclear weapons can make one powerful, which in Pakistan's case can lead to disaster.
Even an idiot with a powerful weapon becomes emboldened to the point that he uses it without any rationale and creates a path for his own destruction.
Kargil defeat proved again that with Nuclear Weapons or without , our generals will always come second in war and first to impose martial law in the country . This self-created monster of privatization of jihad to private groups, without any official bidding in 1980s, has killed and killing more Pakistanis than killed in four wars against India. Indians are no more concernd about Pakistan as they know that Garrison National Security State , Pakistan, is more than capable of destroying itself to the end.
Nuclear arms is giving a false sense of security to Pakistan. India would neither attack its neighbour whether it possessed these mass weopons of destruction or not nor it would deter India to mount a limited or all out attack if Pakistan attempts another Kargil misadventure or found orchestering any terror attack against India.
If one hundred thousand pakistan'i soldiers deployed on pak afghan border could not stop militants crossing border to carry out attack insdine afghanistan then how can 20000 person protect nuclear weapons so so.....
What if the drones attack continue unabated, leading to a mutiny in the army and radicalized generals take command and control of the nuclear weapons.As the PNS Mehran attack showed , the strategic assets have infiltrated the armed forces.
In international politics & balance of power theory role of Nuclear weapons is vital. There is no doubt that these are must for pakistan; however pakistan's military startegy is lacking another vital element which is the economy strength of a country. This strength will come through a leadership that is committed & competent. So far Pakistani miliatry has failed to nurture such a leadership. They promoted a democracy which has failed to deliver. Mushraff raised 75 ministers in his cabnet all of them were incompetent.
Soviet Russia collapsed despite having the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. The collapse of state will be by implosion when it cannot meet the basic needs of majority of its own citizens and diverts money into armaments and grandiose projects
Having Nuclear weapons in a country with a revisionist mindset swamped by terrorists and fundamentalists makes the situation very dangerous. Nuclear weapons states have responsibilities to bear but the country shows no signs of taking them on. Today the Taliban and Al qaeda have their eyes on these strategic assets and are busy consuming the entrails of the State to weaken it sufficiently and achieve their goal finally.
This is an editorial? Is this what you inform rather misinform Pakistanis on advantages of having nuclear weapons and how to exploit it? Have you realized how dangerous Pakistan has become to itself and rest of the world and why all Indian neighbors are not threatened but only Pakistan feels India is a threat. Where is common sense?
@faraz: You appear to be a level headed, open minded and patriotic Pakistani. May your tribe increase.
Our beloved leader said, Pakistanis will "eat grass" but will have nuclear weapons. How true common Pakistanis are forced to eat grass whereas his decendent elite enjoy steak.
@Ali Tanoli: *India has NO FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPON policy. But Pakistan does have FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPON policy. The entire world knows the difference. *
Only one country in the world which cites a 60 year old technology, which can kill millions of people, as its greatest achievement.
What an irony,
Pakistan has to deploy 20,000 highly trained special security forces just to protect the nuclear weapons that were meant to protect Pakistan.
Pakistan is akin to USSR in the final stages. One can recall the similarities.
I will say the more is better for India. The sheer number and weight of the nuclear weapons will soon break the financial back of the state now called Pakistan.
Some questions for you: 1. DId Bangladesh have nuclear weapons? Did India keep an inch of their land in 1971? Does it still have nuclear weapons? HAs India attacked it? 2. Does India have nuclear weapons? Did that deter Pakistan from carrying out Kargill 3. Did that prevent Pakistan establishment from supporting entities like JeM that attacked Indian parliament? (Such support was officially withdrawn later but in July 2001 Musharraf bragged about his support to freedom fighters like JeM.
The fact is Pakistan is a revisionist country and India is a status quo country. Thus India will never attack Pakistan nuclear weapons or not. Pakistan will continue to needle India - nuclear weapons or not. In the end though the radicalized mindset of its citizens has started causing problem for Pakistan without India having to do anything.
@Cynical: "As long as we have our nukes at a ‘ready to use state’, no power in the world can dare touch us. India’s impotent posturing after 2008 mumbai carnage is a case in point."
India has nuclear weapons too in case you had forgotten. That did not prevent Pakistan from the Kargill adventure. India did not consider using them even in 1999 when Pakistan attacked it. What saves Pakistan is not its nuclear warheads but the Indian mindset to use war as the last resort.
@Cynical:
Dont you think India paid Pakistan for the 2008 Mumbai carnage without firing a single shot? Check Pakistan's slide into chaos post 2008.
A bankrupt state, whose writ does not run over much of its own land from Waziristan to Baluchistan, taking pride in nuclear weapons ? What will you do with your nuclear weapons ? You cant eat them. You cant use them unless you want to use them for suicide. They dont even prevent drone strikes. As far as Kashmir is concerned, it has not helped Pakistan's case even one inch ! Kashmir today is among the most peaceful states of india.
Nukes only prevent against a territorial invasion. In case of Pakistan, they couldn’t prevent defeat in Kargil war, 300 drone strikes, Abbottabad raid, terrorist attacks on military installations and total collapse of internal security. I support nuclear technology as it allows a state to reduce its spending on conventional arms; but in immature countries, it further emboldens the policy makers to indulge in dangerous strategic games which eventually end up in global isolation and economic collapse
@John B, WHy dont u tell Russia and India to get rid of there nuc they had accidents allready and tell america they have used allready tell Israel the most rogue state in the world tell france and britain they dont have enemy states next to others why they need for and please dont give us examples of Japan, S, Korea, Taiwan, Germany, we know who is there God fathers.... Banya per kya Bherosa.
As long as we have our nukes at a 'ready to use state', no power in the world can dare touch us. India's impotent posturing after 2008 mumbai carnage is a case in point.
"Possession of nuclear weapons offers significant edge in terms of enhanced political stature and diplomatic relations. It is up to the state and the leadership to formulate a strategy to exploit this potential."
May 1/2 visit to Abbottabd says it all.
There are several countries in the world without nuclear weapon have an enhanced political stature and diplomatic relations. S. Korea is a good example and Taiwan is an another example.
As long as such opinion is mainstream, there is no solution for problems.
What political stature the author is talking about. Give us aid otherwise we will sell our nuclear weapons?
Rubbish.