India's Agni-5 missile, capable of carryingn
uclear warheads, has a range exceeding 5,000 kilometers.
How Real Is the Risk of Nuclear War Between India and Pakistan?
In the most recent India-Pakistan stand-off, there were no ultimatums, no dramatic escalations — yet the pattern of military responses, subtle nuclear signaling, and rapid international mediation quietly reminded the world of the region’s most ominous threat. While the crisis didn’t tip into nuclear conflict, it underlined how swiftly tensions in South Asia can escalate toward that terrifying possibility.
Scientists have even modeled how easily events could spiral. A 2019 study imagined a chilling scenario: a terrorist attack on India’s parliament in 2025 triggering a nuclear exchange with Pakistan. Six years on, a real-world confrontation — ultimately contained by a U.S.-brokered ceasefire — stirred renewed fears of all-out war and exposed just how fragile the peace remains.
As tensions rose, Pakistan delivered what analysts called “dual signals”: launching military retaliation while simultaneously convening a meeting of its National Command Authority (NCA), which oversees nuclear weapons policy. Whether this move was symbolic or strategic remains unclear, but it served as a pointed reminder of Pakistan’s nuclear capability. The escalation reportedly drew direct intervention from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, credited with helping to dial down the crisis.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump later claimed his administration had not just negotiated a ceasefire, but helped avert a “nuclear conflict.” On Monday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi struck a defiant tone in a national address: “There is no tolerance for nuclear blackmail,” he said, warning that any terrorist safe haven would face “precise and decisive strikes.”
India and Pakistan each possess approximately 170 nuclear warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Globally, as of January 2024, there were an estimated 12,121 nuclear warheads, with 3,904 actively deployed. The vast majority are held by the U.S. and Russia, who together control more than 8,000.
Both India and Pakistan rely primarily on land-based missile forces to deliver nuclear weapons, but both are working toward developing full nuclear triads — the ability to launch nuclear weapons from land, air, and sea. According to security expert Christopher Clary of the University at Albany, India has a more robust air-delivery capability and a more advanced naval leg of its nuclear force. In contrast, Pakistan has invested significantly less in developing nuclear submarines, giving India a clear edge in undersea capabilities.
Since their nuclear tests in 1998, the two nations have maintained differing doctrines. Pakistan has never officially declared a nuclear posture, while India adopted a "no first use" policy. However, India's commitment to this doctrine has shown signs of erosion. In 2003, India amended its stance to allow for nuclear retaliation in response to chemical or biological attacks. Further ambiguity arose in 2016 when then–Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar questioned the wisdom of being “bound” by a stated nuclear policy — although he later clarified that he was expressing a personal opinion.
While open nuclear conflict remains an unthinkable last resort, recent events highlight how rapidly geopolitics, military posturing, and national rhetoric can converge to bring that risk uncomfortably close.
Pakistan's surface-to-surface Shaheen II missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead
The lack of an official, published doctrine does not mean Pakistan operates without a nuclear strategy. According to Sadia Tasleem of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, official statements, interviews, and the country’s nuclear developments offer important insights into its operational posture.
While Pakistan’s nuclear threshold remains deliberately ambiguous, former Strategic Plans Division head Khalid Kidwai outlined four key red lines in 2001 that could trigger nuclear use: major territorial losses, destruction of critical military assets, economic strangulation, or political destabilization.
In 2002, then-President Pervez Musharraf emphasized that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were aimed solely at India, and would only be deployed if the country's very survival was threatened.
More recently, former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed in his memoir that he was woken during the 2019 India-Pakistan crisis to speak with an Indian official who feared Pakistan might be preparing a nuclear strike. Around that time, Pakistani media quoted a senior official delivering a chilling warning: “I hope you know what the [National Command Authority] means and what it constitutes. I said that we will surprise you. Wait for that surprise… You have chosen a path of war without knowing the consequences for the peace and security of the region.”
Pakistan's nuclear posturing has a long history. During the 1999 Kargil War, then–Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed declared that the country would not “hesitate to use any weapon” to protect its territory. Years later, U.S. intelligence reportedly indicated that Pakistan was actively preparing its nuclear arsenal for potential deployment during that conflict.
