The writer is director of Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and author of Overcoming Pakistan’s Nuclear Dangers
It is true that Pakistan has experienced no nuclear thefts or seizures and no major nuclear accidents. It should also be noted that Pakistan understands the problems of nuclear terrorism and has taken steps to keep its nuclear assets protected. No country devotes more attention to nuclear security.
In a wider sense, however, Pakistan presents several nuclear dangers. The greatest is the potential for a nuclear war sparked by Pakistan-based extremists conducting another spectacular terrorist attack in India like the one in Mumbai in 2008 and the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001.
The mood in New Delhi, and not just within the BJP camp, is that next time there is an attack which is seen to have Pakistani state fingerprints, India cannot again turn the other cheek. Over the past decade, for example, the Indian Army has promoted a ‘Cold Start’ doctrine of reprisal via incursion by several battle groups across the border.
In response, Pakistan has developed short-range, battlefield use nuclear weapons and asserted that they will be used against attacking conventional forces. The fact that India’s civilian leadership has never endorsed Cold Start makes it no less threatening in Pakistani eyes.
The development of what might be called tactical nukes, launched by 60 kilometres range Nasr missiles, lowers the threshold for nuclear use. This has caused serious alarm among outside observers. So, too, India’s vow that it will employ massive retaliation in response to a nuclear attack, even if against Indian forces operating outside national borders.
With nuclear arsenals numbering not too much more than 100 and systems on a low level of alert status, the strategic arms race in South Asia pales in comparison to the nuclear excesses of the Cold War superpowers. But the introduction of battlefield-use nuclear weapons adds a destabilising element.
Due to the ‘use them or lose them’ choice that could face local commanders, deployment of these systems can lead to rapid escalation if deterrence fails. Pakistan’s need to portray credibility about firing first could sacrifice central government control over strategic weapons in a crisis situation. Pre-delegation can lead to unauthorised use.
These are some of the reasons that Nato moved away from tactical nuclear weapons, which were found to be a costly encumbrance with little practical value. Pakistan insists that its short-range systems will not be pre-deployed, nor will use be delegated to field commanders. In the fog of a crisis, however, even the most robust of command-and-control systems cannot preclude human error.
It is not hard to imagine how accidents, misperceptions and miscalculations could all trigger a South Asian nuclear war. The development of cruise missiles, sea-based platforms and other ambiguous dual-use systems heightens the potential for misperception.
The underdeveloped mechanisms for crisis resolution in South Asia and the absence of dialogue on the factors behind nuclear risks are further reasons for concern. India and Pakistan need to engage each other on the issues that could spark a nuclear clash. Deterrence stability and the factors that contribute to growing nuclear risks should be central topics of dialogue, covering both conventional and nuclear forces.
It is also time to offer Pakistan a path to nuclear normalisation, so that it has an incentive to stop blocking negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, stop producing plutonium and highly enriched uranium and sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Addressing Pakistan’s sense of unfair treatment will enhance prospects for rethinking its tactical nuclear weapons path. Offering nuclear legitimacy is also the most effective way to communicate that the United States and its allies do not seek to forcefully or stealthily disarm Pakistan, and that the Western goal, rather, is deterrence stability.
Holding out the prospect of a nuclear cooperation deal akin to the one accorded India, albeit with stronger non-proliferation conditions, is the most powerful tool Western nations can use to positively shape Pakistan’s nuclear posture.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 7th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (19)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1737631897-0/BeFunky-collage-(26)1737631897-0-165x106.webp "article")
1737631935-0/fizza-(88)1737631935-0-165x106.webp "article")
1736070587-0/Express-Tribune-(2)1736070587-0-270x192.webp "starlink s registration in pakistan linked to elon musk s apology")
1737452260-0/Gaddafi-stadium-(2)1737452260-0-270x192.webp "champions trophy 2025 gaddafi stadium becomes pakistan s largest cricket venue")
1737531830-0/Saim-Ayub-injury-(2)1737531830-0-270x192.webp "champions trophy 2025 saim ayub s likely replacement unveiled")
It is unfortunate that the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons has been subjected to baseless and unnecessary criticism since the country tested its nuclear device. A minor faction often claims that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not safe and can fall into the hands of militants. But is this really possible? It is highly unlikely that these insurgents will get their hands on nuclear weapons which are under the security of more than 25,000 professionally trained personnel.
Mark has no doubt raised concerns rather given them an extraordinary hype by relating the terrorism with nuclear terrorism which is though a grave threat and cannot be ignored but i think states who are having technical issues in their power plants must be concerned like in USA there have news regarding stolen of radioactive material or else leakage of that material while no such news have been heard or published in case of Pakistan. why is it so then? That means Pakistan is having a safe and secured nuclear program and must not be presented as a threat to international community rather as a symbol of prestige and also a deterrent for Pakistan.
It is undeniable despite of difference an opinion that Pakistan made lots of efforts to give its nuclear weapons program the utmost security. No one else can better realize the need of comprehensive nuclear security framework than Pakistanis themselves. Viewing the complexity lies between Pakistan and India, there is no welcome for anything which imbalance the postures of both sides. Indo-US nuclear deal is one such thing which upturns the equilibrium of the region. It is well reflected the dominated backdrop were US political interests and influence. Terrorism is present everywhere not only in Pakistan so what is the reason of discernment for this deal even if Pakistan reflects the responsible potential contender. Does this mean of power politics interests of classical realism?
the writer is concerned to Pakistan which is not more than a far cry.. Why dont they see towards their strategic partner India where: There are huge nuclear security issues in India because it is prone to insurgent groups and separatist rebels. According to the Daily Mail’s reports, most of India’s top nuclear facilities are located in exceedingly Naxal terrorist struck districts of India or in the “Red Corridor”. Some of the sensitive nuclear installations situated in this “Red Corridor” are, Uranium Corporation Of India Limited, Talcher Heavy Water Plant, Institute of Physics, Ceramatic Fuel Fabrication Facility, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Seha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Atomic Minerals Directorate and many more. The shocking aspect of Daily Mail’s report is that some Indian nuclear scientists are reportedly assisting Naxal rebels to learn to utilise and transport uranium. On the other hand, many of India’s missile facilities are located in either the Red Corridor or in the areas controlled by Hindu radicals and militant organisations. There are reported cases of the abduction of nuclear scientists from these areas, which is a very disturbing situation with respect to the safety and security of nuclear weapons.
Where does the article tell us about who started the nuclear arms race in South Asia? He knows only too well that India took civilian aid from Canada in the form of the Candu reactor meant to help energy production and diverted it to military use. The world knows how India detonated a nuclear device and started the nuclearization of South Asia forcing Pakistan to develop a deterrent. With this fact known, the US and the West should apply stiffer sanctions on India to give up these terrible weapons of destruction. Instead the US has been engaging in further nuclear development with India. The author here seems to have a one sided issue of the story and worrying about Pakistan based militants who have only developed because of the Soviet Afghanistan war. Such short sighted analyses do not help clarify the ground reality at all.
@vectra Dont talk like modi!!!
He looks like an imbecile while talking on war and Pakistan issues.
Pakistan has safeguarded its nuclear weapons for decades. If the world is really serious about removing the threat of nuclear war, then the litmus test has to be that all the nuclear powers, declared and undeclared, should put their cards on the table and offer to disarm. Only then can this issue be really tackled, not just in South Asia but for the rest of the world too.
Let us not forget that the US is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons against a civilian population, not once but twice. In the absence of meaningful suggestions western commentators should remember that with an aggressive neighbour in the shape of India with whom they are happy to proliferate nuclear technology to, Pakistan absolutely has a legitimate right to maintain a nuclear deterrent.
These are some of the reasons that Nato moved away from tactical nuclear weapons, which were found to be a costly encumbrance with little practical value. . In hindsight tactical nukes are considered a failure because the cost of securing them outweighs the perceived strategic/tactical value. With budget crunches even the die hard Generals who used to promote tactical nukes now favor other weapon systems.
There are many more scenarios than the simplistic one of a conventional land attack by India. I vote for an overwhelming conventional air attack on economic targets which will set back Pakistan a few decades in development. They can't mount a matching effort, and can't inflict any proportional damage. And there would be no use for those tactical nukes. All in all, I would say India has more choices than Pakistan, and a lot more staying power, conventional or nuclear. The only real danger the whole world faces is the collapse of the Pakistan State as it is today, and the capture of all its assets by an irregular rabble. But whatever solution the world forges to that eventually, chances are Pakistan will be the worst sufferer in the bargain.
Dipak@Zohaib: the opposite will not happen because India has been out of Stone Age for last 67 years.
In sixteen years after overt nuclearization, Pakistan’s security record has been par excellence and even better than states where 80 years old nuns could break into top secret nuclear facilities.
One of way of looking at it presented by the author, another way is India and Pakistan should pump in money just to maintain and to an extent develop nuclear weapons, and eventually that could work as a deterrence of an actual war.
Why is it, Mark, that you pinpoint Pakistani Jihadists as a 'spark' for nuclear war with India? What about the Indian Hindu/Sikh Nationalist attackers against Pakistan?
I guarantee if Pakistan ever used its nuclear weapons (God forbid), a majority of your generals and politicans will withdraw to China and let the rest of you suffer.
Why is the author concerned about Pakistan getting a similar deal from the US as the one India got? Pakistan has already received much more cooperation from another permanent UNSC member, China and that too, despite resistance from US & others. Also, while its true majority of Pakistan's nukes are of tactical type and their use is limited only to kill large formations of troops on a battlefield & not to raze whole cities, Pakistan already has ALOT MORE stockpile of nuclear weapons that it actually requires if a war were to break out between it & India. Why does it need so many nukes? Although I have knowledge of locations of Pakistan's nukes storage & production facilities, and even though it can't be shown here, one thing I can confirm is Pakistan Army has currently 4 operational plutonium factories - working all year round. Plutonium can't be used for producing electricity for the normal Pakistanis, it can be only used in the production of nukes. And while the author states "With nuclear arsenals numbering not too much more than 100 and systems on a low level of alert status, the strategic arms race in South Asia pales in comparison to the nuclear excesses of the Cold War superpowers.", the reality is that India itself has a nuclear stockpile of close to 150 weapons developing at a rate of 6-10 per year, whereas in case of Pakistan, few estimate it to be as high as 300 or more! (even though most of it is of 'low damage' type) and is growing at a rate of around ~15 more nukes per year. It is one thing to have a 'nuclear deterrence', it is a different thing to spend huge amount of country's resources on nuke production that will most likely never be used in a war against India or anyone else, but are at a danger of being used inside Pakistan itself by "non-state actors". These elements came pretty close to acquiring some of Pakistan's nukes during an attack on one of the navel bases a couple years back. In such a scenario (and with the fact that Pakistan is the only country that opposes & blocks negotiations on Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty - not even India has a problem to this treaty!), please explain why would the Western powers offer a nuclear deal readily to Pakistan?
So basically the author indirectly conveys that Pakistan is a young kid with a loaded gun and the west, India should do everyting in their power to passive this young kid ! "Use them or lose them" with this line of thinking does anybody think pakistan is a responsible state? What ever the resons be the world won't spare a country who wuid use a nuke. And yes dnt come up with usa used them and the world did nothing.. Plz get real pak is not usa. Et publish nothing offensive.