In a region haunted by a history of war and the ever-present specter of terrorism, the nuclear dynamic between India and Pakistan remains one of the world’s most dangerous tightropes. Each country possesses roughly 170 to 180 nuclear warheads, and while their arsenals are dwarfed by those of the U.S. and Russia, the risk of intentional or accidental escalation in South Asia is arguably far higher.
The most recent standoff, triggered by a deadly terror attack in Kashmir, pushed both nations alarmingly close to the brink. While ultimatums and red-button dramatics were absent, the signals exchanged were chillingly familiar. Military retaliation was swift. Pakistan convened its National Command Authority — the body responsible for nuclear policy — even as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio intervened to dial down tensions.
President Trump later claimed the U.S. had averted a “nuclear conflict.” Whether that was political posturing or a genuine narrow escape is still debated. But what’s not in doubt is that South Asia again came perilously close to catastrophe.
India’s Strategic Shift
India has traditionally adhered to a No First Use (NFU) policy. However, recent statements from officials have injected ambiguity into that doctrine. While NFU still remains India’s official stance, the subtext suggests flexibility. This ambiguity — particularly during crises — may act as a strategic deterrent, complicating Pakistan’s risk calculus.
India’s investment in a full nuclear triad — the ability to launch nuclear weapons from land, air, and sea — has transformed the balance of power. Arihant-class nuclear submarines provide second-strike capability, making it increasingly difficult for any adversary to consider a first move. The deployment of Agni-5 missiles with Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) capabilities has further enhanced New Delhi’s strategic posture.
More quietly but consequentially, India has now surpassed Pakistan in the number of nuclear warheads, with 180 to Pakistan’s 170, according to the Federation of American Scientists. This numerical edge, while marginal, marks a psychological shift after decades of rough parity.
Pakistan’s Tactical Gamble
Pakistan has not declared a formal nuclear doctrine, but former military officials have publicly outlined the thresholds that could trigger nuclear use: territorial loss, destruction of key military assets, economic strangulation, or political destabilization. These red lines are deliberately vague, intended to deter conventional strikes.
Unlike India’s emphasis on strategic deterrence, Pakistan has leaned on tactical nuclear weapons — shorter-range arms designed for battlefield use. While this theoretically allows for limited use without triggering all-out nuclear war, it introduces new dangers. Lowering the nuclear threshold and delegating battlefield control heightens the risk of accidental or unauthorized launches.
Pakistan’s economy further complicates its deterrence strategy. With a defense budget of only $8 billion compared to India’s $79 billion, Islamabad faces a sobering dilemma: increase nuclear investments or risk falling irreversibly behind. IMF loans and an unstable macroeconomic environment restrict its choices.
The Risk of Miscalculation
South Asia has not lacked close calls. During the 1999 Kargil conflict, Pakistan reportedly readied its nuclear arsenal. In 2019, then–U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recounted being awakened at night to manage fears of imminent nuclear escalation. In 2022, India accidentally fired a nuclear-capable missile into Pakistani territory — a mishap resolved only because tensions were relatively low at the time.
Such incidents underscore a grim reality: the nuclear risk is not limited to deliberate launches. Human error, miscommunication, or technological glitches could unleash a nightmare scenario. The fact that India sacked three Air Force officers for the accidental missile launch shows some accountability — but the deeper issue remains: the region’s nuclear command and control is not foolproof.
The China Factor
India’s nuclear calculus isn’t focused solely on Pakistan. Its Agni series missiles, capable of striking Beijing, reflect broader strategic ambitions. As U.S.-China tensions rise and India positions itself as a counterweight, its nuclear doctrine will likely evolve to reflect that multipolar contest.
For Pakistan, this is an added concern. Any India-China conflict would inevitably shift the balance in South Asia, with implications for Islamabad’s strategic relevance and its own deterrence narrative.
A Deterrent Still Holding — For Now
Despite numerous flashpoints, the nuclear taboo has held. Experts argue that the risk of nuclear war remains relatively low — as long as ground conflict doesn’t escalate. A full-scale war involving tanks and troops risks breaching red lines and triggering a use it or lose it scenario, where commanders feel pressured to launch before their arsenals are destroyed.
At the same time, strategic analysts caution that “low” is not the same as “zero.” Even a 1% risk of nuclear war in such a densely populated region — home to nearly 1.7 billion people — is terrifyingly unacceptable.
Diplomacy, Doctrine, and Dread
Diplomacy has repeatedly averted disaster, but it cannot be the only insurance policy. Formal arms control agreements, crisis hotlines, and transparent nuclear doctrines could help lower the temperature. So far, however, neither side has shown appetite for binding commitments.
What we’re left with is a balance of terror — a Cold War-style standoff complicated by non-state actors, unstable borders, and asymmetrical capabilities.
The question now is whether this deterrence equilibrium can continue to hold in a world that’s growing more unstable by the day. As conflicts rage in Gaza, Ukraine, and the Taiwan Strait, the world can ill-afford another crisis spiraling out of control — especially one involving nuclear weapons.
The recent standoff ended in a ceasefire. But it also sounded a warning: South Asia remains the world’s most combustible nuclear flashpoint. And the line between control and catastrophe grows thinner with every crisis.
