First-ever nuclear war is the ultimate risk of India-Pakistan conflict, say experts

The India-Pakistan conflict has increased the risk of nuclear weapons being used, according to a former Islamabad official and military researchers.

In a swiftly escalating confrontation between the two nuclear powers, at least 26 people were killed in Indian air strikes on Wednesday morning, Pakistani officials said, claiming to have shot down five Indian fighter jets.

India’s “Operation Sindoor” was carried out in response to a militant attack that killed 26, mostly tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir last month, for which New Delhi holds Pakistan responsible. Pakistan denies involvement.

India said 15 of its citizens were killed by Pakistani shelling across the Line of Control (LOC), the de facto border of the disputed Kashmir region that is claimed by both countries. Five Pakistanis were reportedly killed in the exchange.

Islamabad announced on Wednesday that its military had been authorised to “undertake corresponding actions” in order to “avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty.”

Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, with at least 160 nuclear warheads each, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

While India maintains a no first use nuclear policy, it said in 2019 that it was reconsidering this. Although Pakistan has not declared such a policy, it has emphasised possible use of battlefield of “tactical” nuclear weapons as a means to counter India’s larger conventional forces.

Raoof Hasan, who served as special assistant to the former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, accused India of a reckless act that could lead to uncontrolled escalation between the nuclear-armed rivals.

“When a bigger and more powerful country attacks a smaller country that is equipped with nuclear weapons, you are actually provoking the prospect of use of nuclear weapons,” he told The i Paper. “I hope and pray that it does not escalate beyond control.”

Mr Hasan accused India of a reckless act that could lead to uncontrolled escalation between the nuclear-armed rivals.

Hasan, who now leads the opposition PTI party’s policy think-tank, said unconventional forces were a feature of Pakistan’s conflict planning.

“When you have the bomb, you cannot completely eliminate it from your thinking and your strategic paradigm…India has the bomb. We have the bomb. And we have just [test] fired two missiles in the last week. One can be fired up to 450 kilometres and is capable of carrying nuclear weapons.”

“The nuclear paradigm has already been punctured by India,” he added. “India has taken a calculated risk, or I hope it is calculated, with Pakistan’s response.”

Pakistani researchers warn that India’s use of its larger conventional forces could trigger an unconventional response if military planners feel an existential threat.

Anam Murad Khan, a researcher at the Center for International Strategic Studies, a think-tank in Islamabad, wrote that Pakistan could resort to extreme measures in response to India’s aggressive military posture, citing the Cold Start doctrine (CSD), which calls for rapid conquest of Pakistani territory in the event of a major conflict.

“The presence of kinetic strategies in the CSD compelled Pakistan to maintain a credible nuclear deterrence to prevent any military intervention by the belligerent army that is twice its size,” Khan wrote in an article published on Wednesday.

“It is dangerous to have such military intervention plans on board in India, when the other side, Pakistan, sees nuclear weapons as the only deterrent to existential threats. Such a scenario can push to lower the nuclear threshold.”

India enjoys a substantial advantage in manpower, fighter aircraft and armoured vehicles, according to the Global Firepower index.

Independent nuclear specialists have also raised concerns over the exchange of fire between the nuclear powers.

“With 160+ nukes on each side, potential further escalation carries immense risk,” wrote Dr Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, in a post on social media.

Dr Kristensen was co-author of the 2019 research paper How an India-Pakistan nuclear war could start, which considered a scenario in which “Pakistani generals panic and decide that the only way they can repulse an invasion by the superior Indian forces is with nuclear weapons.”

Pravin Sawhney, an Indian army veteran and editor of military news outlet Force India, said both sides could claim accomplishments in Wednesday’s exchange and both had stopped short of invading the other’s territory, clearing a path for de-escalation.

But India’s strikes failed to achieve deterrence, he added, which could lead to further clashes.

“Pakistan is not deterred, so I expect more attacks in Jammu and Kashmir in the coming days,” he said.

Arsla Jawaid, associate director and regional specialist at the Control Risks consultancy, suggested de-escalation could be challenging as the scale of this exchange was larger than many previous border skirmishes, including “targeting of civilian-populated areas and also the downing of many Indian fighter jets.”

Pakistan’s response to Indian strikes is likely to be strong, she believes.

“The risk of escalation remains high despite international calls and efforts to exercise restraint and de-escalate,” said Jawaid.

But she added that both sides had numerous capabilities and means of escalation short of nuclear weapons.

“Both nuclear-armed rivals have plenty of pages in the playbook of conventional warfare and military force that they will draw on without having to resort to their nuclear arsenal…The existence of nuclear weapons on both sides will act as a major deterrent should the security situation grow more fragile.”