India and Pakistan may be plagued by extreme poverty and lack of education but that does not stop the two nuclear-armed rivals from consciously splurging on nuclear weapons.
“India and Pakistan are increasing the size and sophistication of their nuclear arsenals. Both countries are developing and deploying new types of nuclear-capable ballistic and cruise missiles and both are increasing their military fissile material production capabilities,” said the 2012 yearbook of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The neighbours are not only increasing the size of their nuclear arsenal, they’re also increasingly showing it off.
The most recent surge of missile tests kicked off with India’s launch of a new long-range weapon capable of hitting China just over six weeks ago; a launch that was subsequently followed by Pakistan’s very own nuclear-capable missile tests – five to be precise. However, the flexibility given to the nuclear-armed neighbours by the West in part exists as the two neutralise each other’s capabilities.
India successfully test-fired the Agni V on April 20, capable of delivering a one-tonne nuclear warhead anywhere in rival China. The test was followed by Pakistan’s test of ‘first-strike’ tactical short-range warheads, which aim to counter India’s superior conventional forces. The last one was the Hatf VII cruise missile, which was tested on June 5, has a range of 700 km, can carry conventional warheads and has stealth capabilities.
Alarm bells
The routine tests, however, do ring alarm bells in the region and international circles. Pakistan in particular treads a much finer line as the West has conveyed its unease over Islamabad’s ‘two-faced’ approach towards militancy.
Defence analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi suggests that the routine tests are inherent in nuclear deterrence arrangements, adding that such tests will not adversely affect efforts to improve trade and diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan.
“Both want to improve trade relations, at least for the time being. What can hinder trade relations are political, ideological and bureaucratic obstacles which are surmountable,” Rizvi said.
However, some analysts have argued that New Delhi’s strategic priorities are moving away from Pakistan to focus more on China, while Pakistan is still concerned about its eastern neighbour.
“India sees Pakistan as a dangerous irritant but not a rival. Its militarisation is driven by the desire to project power in competition with China,” said nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy.
Defence analyst Talat Masood believes that India’s booming economy and strategic convergence with the US and the West have indirectly raised fears in Islamabad and given a rationale to the military to keep building its nuclear infrastructure and nuclear weapons.
Masood adds that Islamabad has also felt a sense of discrimination as it is denied access to the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
“The US-India strategic partnership agreement has totally altered the strategic balance in India’s favor,” said Masood.
A recent deterioration in relations between the US and Pakistan has also heightened insecurities in Islamabad, analysts suggest.
“The rapid increase in our nuclear arsenal is probably to add redundancy because some severe crisis might lead to a US attempt at snatching Pakistan’s nukes,” said Hoodbhoy.
‘First-strike’ policy
The possible escalation has also caused concern in the region as Pakistan has increased its development of ‘first-strike’ tactical short-range warheads to counter India’s superior conventional forces. There is fear that in a conflict between the neighbours, Islamabad would be the first to use nuclear weapons to deter a conventional strike by New Delhi.
“It is true that tactical nuclear weapons are very destabilising, especially considering the geographical proximity of the two nations,” Masood said, adding that the two countries need to engage in serious dialogue on nuclear and strategic issues. However, he rules out the possibility of Pakistan halting or decreasing the development of tactical weapons.
“If Pakistan agrees to No First Use, India’s conventional military superiority will become operational,” said Askari.
Pakistan is believed to have slightly more nuclear warheads than India – 90 to 110 – compared with New Delhi’s 80-100. But experts say the figures may not include Pakistan’s growing number of short-range tactical weapons, according to a report by The Telegraph.
Published In The Express Tribune, June 14th, 2012.
COMMENTS (23)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
india must come out from the no first use of nuclear doctrine,in case of paksitan or china two front war,india has no choice to wait rather than attack on installations in pk or china.
And can soomeone please explain to me the logic of the "first use" doctrine. A couple of "doctors" here seem to have endorsed it, so would someone please, step-by-step, explain to me how it works in a real world scenario? What happens when you send a missile over as first use?
@Billy, see, that's exactly why its MAD for Pakistan to compulsively do everything that India does!! Let India have its great power pretensions, you guys should save yourself. After all, Pakistan is clearly a well-run country with intelligent leaders at the helm with a long-term vision of the country's place in the world in mind. India is just a starving, mad collection of 1.2 bn nobodys whose missiles research keeps failing, while each and evry single one of yours performs on the dot as it is meant to be. So why keep acting under this obsessive compulsion?? India will fall apart under its own contradictions, so why are you guys wasting millions developing ballistic missiles and increasing number of nuclear weapons??
Whether the Pakistani establishment calls a first strike nuclear missile "tactical" or strategic, the response to it's use in whatever capacity would still be the same. an overwhelming second strike by India so it's pointless to call them tactical weapons. Is the tactic one of complete self destruction by Pakistan?
@Dark Knight: indeed comparison is ridiculous the United nations clearly states India is poorer than Africa let alone Pakistan has a third of the worlds poor and more than half of the worlds malnourished population 700 million indians live in extreme poverty thats many many times more than the population of Pakistan but I am sure bollywood will feed you more fantasy while most indians will ignore these shocking and dire statistics in favour of a bollywood dream its time to start feeding your children first of which 42% are malnourished before claiming your some sort of a power delusions as usual
I think we can safely call it a suicide attack, Bin Laden's favourite attack strategy.
bad for both countires i wud say
@Dr Ainee: Read the whole comment carefully before commenting.
@Sanjoy Das, Manhattan, KS: Because not having a "no first use" policy is part of the deterrent factor. The whole idea of announcing nuclear policies is to deter just like India with its "cold start" doctrine.
India should revoke its cold start doctrine for Pakistan to revoke its first use doctrine.
@Dr Ainee:
The 1974 Pokhran nuclear explosion was labeled 'peaceful' to avoid back-breaking sanctions against India. Not that is was successful.
But what makes you think that India's present No-First-Use doctrine is a 'deceit'? Observe: 1. India's nuclear deterrent is a recessed deterrent posture (unlike the other NWS's active deterrent), meaning that the nuclear warheads are not mated to missiles. 2. Unlike Pakistan, India is not developing short-range nuclear missiles. On the other hand, it is investing heavily in both second-strike capability (including nuclear submarines) as well as Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) capability. 3. If India's No-First-Use doctrine is only a cover, then why doesn't Pakistan do the same thing? After all Pakistan copies every move of India's in the nuclear arena.
For all those 'deterence' advocates:
Nuclear Weapons are a deterrence only if one is defensive. Not if one if offensive. Claiming deterrence - while hosting and launching terror attack from one's country is not going to work for long.
Also, Pakistan attained nuclear status about 2 decades after India. But, it has more nuclear weapons than India - So, there is no competition here. Just one country doing all the heavy duty running.
Pakistan may continue to build huge military assets (including nuclear), but that won't stop it from an implosion like USSR. And more Pakistan behaves like a international rogue - more countries will assist its breakup.
As indians we cannot wish away pakistani ambhitions. They are going to stockpile and build warheads to target india. In my opinion it is done in self-defence. While most of the indians would wish Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons, nobody in indian today make it a big deal when these kind of tests happen in pakistan. Of course all of us hope these two countries never use them. Would both these countries be better off if these money is spent on the poor. I would say if we are corrupt free we could easily take care of our poor(with or without nuclear ambhitions)
@Dr. Syed R. Ali: The reason Pakistan has "first use" policy is that it thinks it can carry out attacks using "non state" actors to meet its military objectives while holding world to ransom with threat of nuclear war. Time will come when someone in India will call this bluff. Perhaps this has not been thought out by Pakistan establishment. When push comes to shove this can happen. And remember Indians have a dynamic nuclear policy. It too can change if situation demands.
@maestro: you are right we are neighbours but our idology and culture is totally different after independent one is islamic republic and other is secular .
Can we stop talking about war with India once and for all please - its a no win situation folks. Conventional or not - nothing will come out of it except destruction and death on both sides. We are neighbours - lets act and talk like friendly neighbours! Talk trade, education, cricket, music, arts, etc. If France,Germany, Italy, Poland can be friends after WW2 why can't we?? look within yourselves on both sides and chilax! Poverty is insane on both sides and we continue spending the little revenue that we have on arms. Stupidity to its hilt!
@khan: You seem to be lacking in critical analysis. Allow me to school you.
The development of such missile is not necessarily for use but for deterrence value. Above all, Pakistan Army is correct to have a "First Use" policy which essentially blocks misadventures from the other side. We say it working well in 2002 and 2008.
No reason to fix what isn't broken.
@khan: Yours are very logical and sensible comments. May god bless the people of both the countries with good sense.
Pakistani military strategists are of the impression that the massive columns of Indian troops invading Pakistan could be wiped out by tactical nukes. But to think Indian military strategists are not already tweaking invasion scenarios to negate the tactical nuke option is being naive. Tactical nukes will only end up turning Pakistani land into glass with little impact to the invading force.
@roadkashehzada: Incorrect. Pakistan's Army is simply justifying the expenditure on increasing nuclear missiles by fooling it's won people. 4-5 missiles and 10 times redundancy, which is 40-50 along with NO "no first use" policy is enough for Pakistan to target or deter India from launching any conventional attack. Increasing the stockpile beyond it is simply dangerous chest thumping. But hey, whatever it please Pakistan's insecure military and people. @Authos Hasaan : India is no longer bracketed with Pakistan in any field. So stop comparing illiteracy in India and Pakistan. Off shore employment of Indians vs Pakistanis in high tech, medical and space fields is proof of facts enough to correct your wishful assumptions that India is in such a pathetic state as Pakistan. Only thing remotely comparable is our pathetic political infrasturcture.
MAD- Mutual Assured Destruction, is what they used to call it in the Cold War heyday. Now its just insanity. If there is a nuclear conflict between the two Military Giants of South Asia. And one does "triumphs" over the other. The Geographical proximity will make sure that nuclear fall outs and after effects will be catastrophic for the victor too.
India as a responsible power has "No first use" policy. We on the other hand go chest thumping around on "tactical first strike policy", which raises alarm bell all over. It seems we have invested tax payer money on N missile of 60 km !. Only a fool to the nth degree can have a "first use" policy, fairly knowing that even the smallest misadventure anywhere will invite massive retaliation which will wipe out entire country in minutes, that too with entire world supporting them on moral grounds. We have narrow and long geography, very short coastline, highly dense population centers, only one economic city, only one port... its like a sitting duck.
unfortunate but inevitable in the wake of threats from US to take over pakistans nuclear and so called team of experts in afghanitan or ocean ready to do that