India-Pakistan conflict: How real is the risk of nuclear war?

There were no ultimatums or dark buttons in the most recent India-Pakistan stand-off.

The country’s most dangerous shadow was slowly evoked by the period of military retaliation, veiled signals, and timely global mediation. The situation didn’t turn into a nuclear war, but it did serve as a reminder of how fast tensions can bring that ghost to light.

Even scientists have modelled how easily things could unravel. A 2019 study by a global team of scientists opened with a nightmare scenario where a terrorist attack on India’s parliament in 2025 triggers a nuclear exchange with Pakistan.

Six years later, a real-world issue, which was contained by a US-brokered peace on Saturday, sparked concerns about a full-fledged issue. Additionally, it brought back nervous memories of how delicate stability in the area can become.

Pakistan retaliated physically while announcing a National Command Authority (NCA ) meeting, a calculated warning of its nuclear capability, as the issue grew. The NCA regulates the country’s radioactive arsenal’s usage and power. We may not know whether this action was intended as a symbolic, tactical, or real update. Additionally, it occurred just as Marco Rubio, the US’s secretary of state, apparently intervened to stop the loop.

According to President Trump, the US didn’t really negotiate a peace; it averted a “nuclear turmoil.” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated in an address to the nation on Monday: “[ There is no compassion for nuclear coercion. Nuclear challenges won’t intimidate India.

Modi continued,” Any extremist safe haven operating under this pretext may face specific and decisive attacks.”

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ( Sipri), India and Pakistan each possess about 170 nuclear weapons. Sipri estimated that there were 12,121 atomic weapons worldwide as of January 2024. About 9,585 of these were kept in military supplies, with 3,904 deliberately serving, or 60 more than the prior year. More than 8,000 nuclear arms are produced by the US and Russia up.

According to Christopher Clary, a safety affairs specialist at the University at Albany in the US, the bulk of India’s and Pakistan’s deployed stockpiles is found in their land-based weapon troops, though both are developing atomic chords capable of delivering weapons by land, air, and water.

” India likely has a larger air foot than Pakistan (aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons ). Although the naval leg of Pakistan is the least well-known, he claimed,” It is reasonable to think that India’s marine foot is more developed and capable than Pakistan’s sea-based nuclear power.”

One reason, according to Mr. Clary, is that Pakistan has not yet invested the “time or income” required to build a nuclear submarine, giving India a” clear subjective” advantage in terms of naval nuclear capability.

Pakistan has not officially declared an established nuclear doctrine since testing atomic weapons in 1998.

In contrast, following its own assessments in 1998, India implemented a no-first-use plan. However, this attitude has begun to soften. In 2003, India granted the country the right to employ nuclear weapons in response to natural or chemical attacks, efficiently allowing for its first use in certain circumstances.

When then-defence minister Manohar Parrikar suggested India doesn’t think “bound” by the policy, which raised concerns about its long-term viability, another misunderstanding emerged in 2016. ( Parrikar made it clear that this was his own opinion. ) )

According to Sadia Tasleem of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the lack of a proper doctrine doesn’t think Pakistan lacks one. Interviews, official statements, and nuclear developments provide clear indications of its operating posture.

Although Pakistan’s nuclear threshold is still unclear, Khalid Kidwai, the next head of the NCA’s Strategic Plans Division, laid out four purple lines in 2001: major territorial loss, the destruction of significant military assets, economic strangulation, or political destabilization.

Pervez Musharraf, the then-president, stated in 2002 that “nuclear munitions are aimed solely at India” and would only be used if” the very presence of Pakistan as a status” was in danger.

Previous US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed in his autobiography that he was shocked when he woke up at night to talk to an unknown” American rival” who feared Pakistan was planning to employ nuclear weapons during the 2019 stand-off with India.

A senior official, who was quoted by Pakistani media at the time, issued a stark warning to India:” I hope you know what the [National Command Authority ] means and what it constitutes.” I promised to amaze you. Delay for that wonder: You have chosen to go on war without knowing what would happen to the region’s peace and security. “

Pakistan’s then-foreign director Shamshad Ahmed warned that the nation do not “hesitate any tool” to support its territory during the Kargil War in 1999. Decades later, US Ambassador Bruce Riedel made the revelation that Pakistan was preparing its nuclear arsenal for a potential implementation.

However, both sides have skepticism about these statements.

Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian large director to Pakistan, wrote in his autobiography that Pompeo exaggerated both the US’s part in calming the conflict in 2019 and the risk of nuclear escalation. There was no actual trigger for even an inherent nuclear threat, claim Muslim analysts, and during Kargil, Pakistan “knew the Indian Air Force doesn’t mix into its territory.”

The world is reminded that any conflict is escalate, and the stakes are higher with India and Pakistan because of the nuclear overhang. Ejaz Haider, a defense analyst from Lahore, told the BBC that this does not indicate either aspect is constantly threatening nuclear usage.

However, nuclear increase may also occur accidentally. This could be caused by human error, thieves, terrorists, system problems, bad information from observatories, and fragile officials, according to Prof. Alan Robock of Rutgers University, the lead author of the groundbreaking 2019 report by a global team of scientists, to the BBC.

India fired a nuclear-capable cruise missile unintentionally into Pakistani territory in March 2022, traveling 124 kilometers ( 77 miles ) into Pakistan before crashing, causing alleged damage to civilian property. India claimed for two days that it had used the military line or made a speech in public. According to experts, the incident may have sprang into major conflict if it had happened during heightened tensions. Three air force officers were fired by India’s government for the “accidental firing of a missile” ( Months later ). )

However, according to Mr. Clary, the likelihood of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is still “relatively low.”

The risks of nuclear usage are comparatively minor and reasonable, he said, as long as there isn’t significant ground combat along the border.

The “use it or lose it” problem is exacerbated by the possibility that the army will overrun your floor positions in ground fight. The phrase” Use it or lose it” refers to the strain a nuclear-armed nation might think when it launches its weaponry before an adversary uses them as a second strike. )

According to Sumit Ganguly, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, “neither India nor Pakistan wants to be compared to being the first country to violate the post-Hiroshima atomic taboo.”

Any part that uses nuclear weapons had, he added, face significant retaliation and suffer inacceptable casualties, Mr. Ganguly told the BBC.

India and Pakistan both appear to be expanding their radioactive army at the same time.

According to The Nuclear Notebook, which was conducted by the Federation of American Professionals ‘ Nuclear Information Project, Pakistan’s nuclear army could have 200 weapons by the late 2020s due to new supply networks in development, four uranium units, and growing uranium enrichment.

According to the International Panel on Fissile Materials, India reportedly had about 680 kg of weapons-grade plutonium in its early 2023 years, making it capable of producing between 130 and 210 nuclear warheads.

Both parties have so far managed to prevent a catastrophic turn into nuclear conflict despite numerous crises and close calls. The “deterrent” is still in place. Umer Farooq, an analyst based in Islamabad, writes that all Pakistanis did was use counter-conventional strikes of their own in response to conventional strikes.

Despite having nuclear weapons, the presence of a constant undercurrent of risk, one that cannot be completely ruled out, no matter how well-versed the leadership or how restrained the intentions are.

There is always an unacceptable level of danger when nuclear weapons are involved, according to John Erath, senior policy director at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, who spoke to the BBC.

The risk is small because the Indian and Pakistani governments have handled these situations in the past. Even a small risk is too great for nuclear weapons, though. “