The writer is a visiting faculty member at the School of Politics & International Relations, Quaid-e-Azam University
A potential nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be a chain of unfortunate events, possibly triggered by another spectacular terrorist attack in India by Pakistan-based quasi-state extremists. India would trade the ‘Gandhian restraint’ for a dance of destruction to punish Pakistan without activating a nuclear response.
In times of defence, Pakistan’s hand would be forced to defeat advancing Indian forces either by conventional forces or by using low-yield nuclear weapons. India threatens a massive retaliation against limited nuclear use, discounting assured Pakistani quid pro quo. There will be no winners in a nuclear war.
Escalating a crisis on the grave assumption that Pakistan would be involved in a future terrorist attack is a commitment trap. The rational choice of investigating such an event with Pakistani help would be an easy option. Fighting terrorism in all its forms is essential. Having a military-to-military joint intelligence sharing mechanism in times of peace would be another ideal worth considering. Pakistan had made such an offer after the Mumbai incident.
Likewise, relying on a massive nuclear retaliation threat in hopes to deter Pakistani response to limited war strategy is a naive assumption at best.
The two risky extremes seem impervious to the certainty that there is no way both sides would be able to guarantee either to dominate or control a crisis from escalating. Pakistan has endured several ‘Mumbais’ and the disadvantages of sponsoring sub-conventional war outweigh any potential dividends. As a responsible nuclear weapons state, Pakistan exercises restraint in dealing with terrorist attacks on its soil even if evidence of Indian linkages exist. Statements by American and Indian officials show Indian involvement.
Indian strategies of Cold Start — fighting under Pakistani nuclear threshold — and massive retaliation strain deterrence stability. Pakistan took appropriate measures to deter India from presenting it a fait accompli at tactical and conventional level of operations.
Islamabad has developed short-range missiles like Hatf-IX (Nasr) for delivering low-yield warheads against advancing forces seeking limited war. The Indian political leadership has to move beyond disowning the doctrine, taking credible and verifiable measures of reversing the Cold Start doctrine.
Massive retaliation is a Samson option of destroying itself and taking with it a billion-plus people in the region. It negates the rationale for producing credible deterrence capability such as nuclear submarine-based delivery systems.
Nuclear weapons should be a source of restraint and responsibility instead of bluster. A strategic restraint regime of three interlocking elements of nuclear restraint, conventional balance and dispute settlement has been on offer to India for a while. Such a regime could be a starting point for regional stability. The deterrence value of nuclear weapons can help both states get out the tactical weed and concentrate on strategic issues.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (32)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
I dont understand meaning of tactical Nuclear weapon. If 3000 Indian soldiers cross punjab border into pakistan, pakistan will drop a small nuclear bomb in pakistani punjab which will kill atleast 1 crore Pakistani (in long run) Punjabi along with 3000 Indian soldiers and render the pakistani land toxic for a decade? Its like saying if try you try to grab my arm I will cut my arm.
well written piece. i think the writer has a very brief understanding of the region , its like giving the right perspective of the region. though usually the Tactical N/weapons Debate and cold start doctrine are seen through the European prism , where as the ground realities in South Asia are different .very good effort btw
A spot on analysis. Clearly demonstrates the Pakistan's defensive posture it is seeking for got after the introduction of tactical nuclear weapons. These short range missile would have impregnable deterrence capability against its adversaries. These weapons would force the Indians to limit themselves in their border.
Does India need tactical nuclear weapons? They have to understand that stable defences cannot be based on such dubious weapons. Much of the conclusiveness rests on highly subjective assumptions and preferences political, military and technological that may have no basis in fact. The only coherent course of action for India appears to be that since no major advantages seem to accrue from tactical nuclear weapons in future conflicts on the Indian Subcontinent, their development and introduction into service are best avoided. The Indian nuclear arsenal does not need tactical nuclear weapons and never will.
Pakistan has repeatedly proposed the initiation of a strategic restraint regime in the subcontinent but India has dismissed such peace overtures. It is ironical that a State that aspires to revise the global order is not amenable to make peace in its immediate neighbourhood. Charity usually begins at home. Pakistan has no regional or global power ambitions. It has always aspired to live peacefully, if unencumbered with such challenges on its borders.
@Rex Minor Pakistan’s nuclear programme is for deterrence against India and to stabilise the subcontinent.
@someone kindly draw a line between traditional and non traditional security threats. Pakistan is not talking about nuclear war rather making India to realize that developments on indian side can trigger arms race in the region. India is not interested then out of nothing it is developing all bullets and working on missiles then India has become psychotic or out of paranoia doing all this.
Its funny how the Pakistanis, who can't bear the heat and run on streets to protest against load shedding, talk about nuclear war which can produce enormous heat. I am not sure if India is even interested in conventional war. I mean why use a bullet when enemy is suffocating itself.
@Bahoo Bolay.: The Yankees are the only one in the world, who have not droppesry. one but two nukes on Japan. There are many who could not figure out, why two?
Rex Minor
In a nuclear conflict, who ever would use the maximum force first, would be at huge advantage. This is simple and plain truth. India by threatening with "disproportionate retaliation" has immensely raised the bar, and Pakistan is left with no option but to go for the maximum damage using strategic weapons first, and then use the tactical weapons to stop the advancing forces, if any remained till then. In my view, by adopting "disproportionate retaliation" policy, India has invited self-destruction as pointed out by the author. God save the region and the world from 'Hindutva' fanatics.
There are hardly one or two countries in the world which can withstand the nuclear strike and be able to annhilate the aggressor into ashes. Russia is the one such country but India is definitely not the second.se who are interested to know, Russia is one and India is definitely not the other in the club.
Rex Minor
Who is responsible or nation in this world not too long ago American pres was saying we gonna used the atomic weapons if its necessary what that means even though Iraq never had any mass destruction weaponry and that drama fabricated by English foxies and I think india and Pakistan are much better in term of responisible nations and when its comes to non state actors I think every country does that with there respective secret agencies...
Why we are quite on this when a Nuclear Weapon State India itself adhere to limited conventional attack in shape of CSD against another Nuclear Weapon State Pakistan. We can well imagine the intentions of that very state. If in this response, Pakistan goes for TNWS Nasr than what’s so big wrong in this. I think why TNWs of Pakistan becomes hot cake to oppose, the very reason is this that India are not having them. It is this misbalance of technology which makes Indian difficult to bear.
At the very first hand, this should be noted that terrorism is present around the globe but with different connotations. In India itself, there are strong extreme elements which are anti government and enjoying their own government under one state. Simply, the non state actors has no nationality nor religion which are simply going with their own vested interests. Pakistan itself has suffered a lot in the name of terrorism so labeling Pakistan only is not at all just. Its nukes are for whom, this is also obvious since inception of nuclear weapons. Pakistan is confronted with lots of external and internal threats but for its eastern border it does its best to establish deterrence with nukes.
Apart from the complexity of South Asian region, everybody is well aware the underlying tit for tat strategy. The trigger point of 11 May 1998 nuclear weapons tests made acquaint the region with these destructive weapons of mankind. Pakistan is a sovereign nuclear weapon state which inherited this right to make every possible measure in order to secure its statehood. Nasr is actually a kind of collective response to all those hostile aggressive approaches of the next door neighborhood.
Apart from the complexity of South Asian region, everybody is well aware the underlying tit for tat strategy. The trigger point of 11 May 1998 nuclear weapons tests made acquaint the region with these destructive weapons of mankind. Pakistan is a sovereign nuclear weapon state which inherited this right to make every possible measure in order to secure its statehood. Nasr is actually a kind of collective response to all those hostile aggressive approaches of the next door neighborhood.
Nobody will be left over to see that who will be the winner of nuclear war. This is obvious from the very start that it is the lethality of nuclear weapons which makes its credible to go for deterrence purposes. Deter means to avoid. So possessed with nuclear weapons, states somewhat gives a halt to war credentials like the two Pakistan and India. But Cold Start Doctrine reflects the hostile intentions in which state itself opens a room to limited attack against a sovereign state. This doctrine has credential to open a treacherous business of bloodshed under the shadow of nukes.
Excellent rationalization of constructed fears.
India has now decided to step up sub-conventional warfare with Pakistan. Give our neighbors a taste of their own medicine, ZAB asked for a 1000 year war with India. India will definitely oblige and give a 10000 year war!!
India‘s doctrinal transformation and anti-missile development underscore that it is inclined to maximize its relative power to punish or blackmail Pakistan. Meanwhile Pakistan‘s pursuit for a tactical nuclear weapon is very much to maximize its security by sustaining and enduring the prevalent strategic equilibrium with its eastern neighbor. Therefore the argument that development of tactical nukes will increase the tensions or would destabilize the region seems quite incorrect and at the same time a pre mature analysis. Infact tactical nukes have somehow increased the deterrence capability of Pakistan and made its defensive posture credible vis-a-vis India's massive doctrinal development.
Fortunately we have tactical nuclear weapons, that can be used against any adversaries in case of conventional attack from their side.
Ideal analysis of Indian Provocative CSD and Pakistan's persual for Tactical Nuclear Weapons. Indeed, Pakistan has successfully restricted Indian intentions.
India is arming to its teeth and will vitiate not only South Asian security environment but also the global balance with its long-range delivery means. It is just a matter of time that the advanced capabilities like induction of aircraft carrier Vikramditya, testing of ICBMs like Agni V and VI, hypersonic missiles, nuclear submarines etc., India will become a huge threat to global peace.Comparatively, Pakistan’s approach remains that of minimum deterrence but not at the cost of weakening the credibility of its deterrent. Nasr’s successful development is a relief in this regard.
Great article indeed, A conventional asymmetry can be minimized with the help of Low Yield Nuclear weapons. Certainly, a massive retaliation will force Pakistan to use its low yield nuclear weapons in order to restrict India to its own borders.
You are trying to confuse without success. Not a single attack in Pakistan anywhere has been sponsored from India based on any evidence while many terror attacks in India have been masterminded from Pakistan. The world is also very aware as to which country has pioneered the creation of non State actors and why. To fool readers by believing them to be gullible to propaganda, may not succeed. Pakistan may be seeing many Mumbai type massacres because it houses and shelters terrorists. There are no terrorists trained in india or coming from India to carry out such attacks and responsibility should rightly be placed at the doors of those who created and use these terror proxies. Using nuclear weapons will bring massive retaliation, to argue that using them in small quantities or doses and tactical weapons is different only means the difference between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons has not been understood.
No body Knows about future, but i am 100% sure that if there is such type of war takes place, Indian ICBMs will target and ruin countries like Saudi Arabia. India will dye but with entire Arab region. Hoping that for world peace there will not any 26/11 Mumbai type Terror attack.
Low yield weapons make Pakistan's nuclear deterrent more credible and Indian doctrine of massive retaliation more incredible.
Not only Pakistan, India should also target the nations like China and Saudi Arabia that supplied the weapons.
The author is a naughty boy, none of the contra hands are going to use tactical weapons nor try to stop the conventional armies. The country which fears its existance from the other will commence the start and ths will be the end of the other. It will most probably be the weaker of the two.
Rex Minor