Nuclear Arms in the Indian Subcontinent
February 19th, 2010
A very important topic that should be included in any analysis of India is the effect of nuclear weapons in the region. Both India and Pakistan possess these weapons and the capacity to deliver them to the other country within ten minutes, tops. It is inevitable that if nuclear weapons were even deployed by one of the two countries, because of the close proximity of their citizens, both Pakistan and India would be dramatically affected.
In the event of war, both countries have pledged not to use nuclear weapons as a first resort. India, as the dominant military power and the victor of all three wars between itself and Pakistan, claims it would not use nuclear weapons preemptively (No-First-Use Policy). However, Pakistan will not take such a position. Pakistan covets its nuclear weapons dearly, as it should. India’s conventional military forces dwarf those of Pakistan, prompting Pakistan to view its own nuclear capabilities as the major deterrent to an Indian invasion.
As a side note, here is a link to a possible scenario of what might happen if India and Pakistan ever went to war: Click here. As a quick and dirty summary, India’s navy would severely dominate the seas and would cut off Pakistan’s main port of Karachi, both air forces would sustain major losses with India’s likely prevailing, and the strength of any land campaign is questionable (though both would sustain heavy damages – possibly more to Pakistan who would likely fight a defensive campaign). Keep in mind this is only a possible scenario, but it seems like a good deal of thought was put into the analysis (also consider that it was written about eight years ago). Overall, according to this view, Pakistan would likely sustain heavier losses, proportionately.
It has been estimated that Pakistan and India possess about 10-100 and 50-150 warheads, respectively. In addition, while Pakistan declared that it has detonated around six nuclear devices, India and the United States place the actual number around two, and believe that the devices were about two to three times weaker than the strengths Pakistan claimed the weapons had.
Every so often, little skirmishes occur on the Indo-Pakistani border. Is it possible that one of these could escalate into a full-fledged war, as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident? How far do you think either of the countries could push before nuclear weapons would be called upon? Do you think either country would ever use these weapons? Could Pakistan merely be bluffing with its nuclear claims?
-Jay Ponto
Entry Filed under: 2010 Student Blogs, India, Misc.
8 Comments Add your own
1. Jordan Wente | February 26th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I think it would take a lot to escalate a full-fledged war between these two countries. A lot is to be said about their current relationship with each other. The longer and longer issues fester the more and more likely a war could arise from these conflicts. With the Indian public still outraged about the Mumbai attack formal diplomacy has become more complicated than ever. In order to keep the threat of war between the two countries at bay it seems diplomatic relations need to be reestablished. According to the New York Times on Thursday India made the offer to start talks with Pakistan in order to resume formal diplomacy. This could signal a step in the right direction that in essence could lessen the threat of war between the two countries.
Pakistan would likely be the first to use nuclear weapons on India but doing so would mean that India could strike back even harder. This seems like a possibility that I doubt Pakistan wants to encounter. Furthermore, the use of nuclear weapons would have severe consequences on either countries relationship with the international community. India is working to becoming an influential global player and future economic growth depends on the stability of the region. It seems to me that the price of using the nuclear weapons is far too high for either country. India is on a path to economic prosperity and with so much at stake can they really afford to go to war?
2. Tim Lynds | March 1st, 2010 at 4:35 pm
- Corrected version. Please use this one and delete the first response.
A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would not just be a war between the two countries. Nuclear war can never be an isolated incident between two countries due to the extreme power of nuclear weapons and the negative consequences of using them. This type of war would affect the entire world and would likely draw in the superpowers and others. Both countries know this and hopefully will think of the consequences of starting a nuclear war before any action is taken.
I think it is very possible that this type of war will take place in the future, but tensions would have to escalate to a much higher degree. Let’s cross our fingers and hope they just all get along.
3. Chase Janvrin | March 1st, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Jay, I have to wonder, why do you feel it so understandable that Pakistan covets these weapons so dearly? In this day and age, possessing nuclear weapons is nothing more than an invitation to attack or espionage. Pakistan holds inferior nuclear weapons; low grade and of limited range that are capable of being fired by standard canon type guns (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/). Because of this, Pakistan’s arsenal is probably one of the most likely to slip into some terrorist organizations hands, and that is the real threat.
Jordan, I agree with you 100%. If India is to continue to prosper at such an astonishing clip, they must remain stable. A major war, especially a nuclear war, could potentially send them back decades in terms of infrastructure, and respect with in the global business community.
Let’s all hope neither of these scenarios occur, that India and Pakistan continue to work together towards mutual prosperity and sovereignty, and who knows, perhaps one day we’ll see a cricket team of consisting of Indians AND Pakistanis. Hopefully beating a Canadian team…
4. Frederick Peemoeller | March 1st, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I don’t think these countries will go to a full fledged war anytime soon. The impact of 50-100 nuclear bombs detonating on a country is something that no country in the world is willing to risk. The destruction would be so devastating that a country could never recover, which is why in my opinion, they have so many. Its ironic, but I believe they use these weapons of mass destruction to keep peace between the countries rather than start a conflict.
5. Michael Minasian | March 5th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
This is an interesting question. Given that the world has never really seen a full fledged “nuclear war” (with attack and retaliation with nukes) it’s hard to estimate the level of involvement of other large nations. However, judging by the response of the worldwide community to the *potential* for countries like North Korea and Iran to having nukes, shows that the rest of the world cares very much about exactly who has these weapons, and their relative stability. Chase makes a great point about outside forces obtaining the weapons which would probably be the worst possible outcome. It seems to me, (perhaps from my jaded worldview) that nuclear war is unlikely from either side currently. Looking at it with game theory, they have a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma on their hands. It seems that both countries realize that they are both better off keeping their nukes at bay. Both countries need to be sure not to back the other into a corner where they use one out of desperation.
6. Jeff | March 18th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
I think I’d have to agree with Michael. I believe the risk is lower that nuclear weapons would be used between the two countries, than the risk that an extremist group would somehow get them for terrorist activities. This has always been the fear since the Soviet Union failed… Who will get the nukes? I think they’re being used mostly as a deterrent in the same way that the U.S. is using them.
7. Chris Phippen | March 19th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Again, I’m in agreement. I love that Mike likened the situation to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. I’d say the likelihood of nuclear war between these two is very low. As mentioned above, each knows that the other has the capability, and will use them in retaliation if the other side presses the button first. Pakistan is just trying to equalize the situation because they’re a smaller, underpowered country.
The fact that U.S Intelligence discredits Pakistan’s claims about the number and yield of their nukes makes me think they are bluffing, not just about the size of the arsenal, but that the refusal to sign a first-to-use agreement is also a bluff. Hopefully no one “calls” in this situation.
8. Matthew Perez | March 19th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Even if Pakistan’s nuclear armaments are not as powerful as those of India, a nuclear weapon is still a nuclear weapon. In a large city like New Delhi, the destruction and death cause by such a device would be horrid. Although there is a deep resentment between the two countries, I doubt either truly wants to use their nuclear arsenal. They are essentially following the U.S. strategy during the Cold War; deterrence. It would take a drastic action by either country in order to trigger the usage of one of these weapons. For the betterment of people around the world, I am glad for that.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed