logo
What happens if Pakistan launches a nuclear missile? Understanding South Asia's most dangerous question

What happens if Pakistan launches a nuclear missile? Understanding South Asia's most dangerous question

First Post10-05-2025
As India and Pakistan engage in their most intense military conflict in decades, the nuclear question looms large. With both nations possessing powerful arsenals and second-strike capabilities, a single miscalculation could spiral into catastrophe. This report breaks down the strategic doctrines, missile systems and the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that continue to hold back the unthinkable read more
Aerial photo of the mushroom cloud rising over Nagasaki, Japan after the United States detonated an atomic bomb on August 9, 1945. Representational Image/US National Archives
Cross-border tensions between India and Pakistan have climbed to new heights. Amid escalating military operations, the world is once again confronted with a harrowing question: what happens if Pakistan launches a nuclear missile?
The issue transcends conventional warfare. It enters a domain where the margin for error is non-existent, where every strategic calculation hinges on the doctrine of deterrence and where the consequence of miscalculation is unthinkable devastation.
Pakistan's nuclear programme, born from its perception of existential threat following India's 1974 nuclear test , has matured into a formidable deterrent.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Since the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam and retaliatory measures by India that followed, politicians in Pakistan have made explosive threats mentioning nuclear weapons. Pakistani minister Hanif Abbasi remarked last month , 'We have kept Ghori, Shaheen, Ghaznavi, and 130 nuclear weapons only for India.'
Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, in an interview with Reuters has also said that Pakistan would only use its arsenal of nuclear weapons if 'there is a direct threat to our existence'.
On Saturday (May 10, 2025), Pakistan PM Shebaz Sharif reportedly called a meeting of the National Command Authority, the apex body overseeing the nation's nuclear arsenal, a meeting which Asif has now claimed never happened .
'No meeting has happened of the National Command Authority, nor is any such meeting scheduled,' Asif told Karachi-based ARY TV.
How Pakistan is nuclear-capable
Over the past two decades, Islamabad has developed a diverse array of nuclear-capable delivery systems spanning land, air and sea. The Shaheen-II missile, with a range of approximately 2,000 kilometres, is central to Pakistan's land-based nuclear posture.
More recently, the Ababeel missile, equipped with Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) signals a significant leap in Pakistan's ability to overwhelm enemy defences.
Pakistani military trucks carry the long range nuclear-capable surface-to-surface 'Ghauri' ballistic missile during the National Day parade in Islamabad, Pakistan, March 23, 2005. File Image/Reuters
On the air front, Pakistan's fleet of F-16s and Mirage aircraft are believed to be capable of deploying nuclear gravity bombs and air-launched cruise missiles such as the Ra'ad, with a range exceeding 350 kilometres.
Meanwhile, the Babur-3 submarine-launched cruise missile represents a developing but ambitious bid for a second-strike capability — vital for maintaining credible deterrence in the event of a first strike disabling land-based assets.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Pakistan has upwards of 170 nuclear warheads compared to India's 180, as of 2025.
How India may be able to defend itself
India, on the other hand, has adopted a declared 'No First Use' policy since the early 2000s and has developed a strategic nuclear triad to enforce this doctrine.
Its arsenal includes land-based Agni series missiles, capable of reaching targets from neighbouring states to as far as China, nuclear-capable aircraft like the Mirage 2000 and Jaguar, and most crucially, submarine-based ballistic missile platforms like the INS Arihant and INS Arighaat.
These nuclear-powered submarines give New Delhi a stealthy, survivable second-strike option, reinforcing its deterrence posture.
A surface-to-surface Agni V missile is displayed during the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, India, January 26, 2013. File Image/Reuters
Missile defence remains one of the most intensely debated aspects of modern military planning in the subcontinent.
While India has made major strides in developing a layered Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) shield, comprising systems like the Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) and the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) interceptors, the task of successfully detecting and destroying an incoming nuclear missile is far from assured.
At speeds that can exceed 24,000 kilometres per hour and with decoy or MIRV capabilities, even a single missile can render defence systems ineffective.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Swordfish radar system, designed to track enemy projectiles up to 1,500 kilometres away, is part of India's response to this challenge.
Yet, military experts consistently highlight the point that no missile shield guarantees complete protection against a nuclear salvo, particularly one involving multiple warheads.
What MAD entails
This brings the discourse back to the enduring concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) — a principle that has, paradoxically, helped preserve peace among nuclear powers. MAD rests on the assumption that no rational actor would initiate a nuclear strike knowing that it would inevitably trigger a retaliatory response resulting in total annihilation.
The doctrine works as a deterrent because the destruction would be so catastrophic for both the attacker and the defender that neither would benefit. In the India–Pakistan context, this logic still holds.
A surface-to-surface Agni V missile is launched from the Wheeler Island off the eastern Indian state of Odisha, April 19, 2012. File Image/Reuters
Both nations possess second-strike capabilities and understand that a nuclear war, regardless of who launches first, would result in national collapse, mass civilian casualties and a geopolitical fallout that would reverberate globally.
Why MAD is not foolproof
Nevertheless, MAD is not a foolproof safety net. The threat lies not in official doctrines, which are usually shaped with extreme caution, but in the possibility of misinterpretation, rogue actors or unintended escalation during conventional conflicts.
Unlike the Cold War standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, where strategic communication channels were institutionalised and borders were not shared, India and Pakistan are separated by a tense and highly volatile Line of Control.
When fighter jets are engaged in combat, missiles are being fired at military installations and nationalist rhetoric escalates, the room for error narrows.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Moreover, Pakistan's development of tactical nuclear weapons — smaller-yield warheads designed for battlefield use — further complicates the deterrence equation.
These weapons lower the nuclear threshold and risk normalising their use in conventional scenarios. India's military doctrine, in contrast, states that any nuclear strike — tactical or strategic — will invite massive retaliation.
The real cost
All of this unfolds in a region where the civilian population is most vulnerable. Both countries host massive populations in densely populated urban centres.
A single nuclear detonation in cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Karachi or Lahore could result in hundreds of thousands of immediate casualties, with many more dying from radiation exposure and long-term fallout.
Hospitals, infrastructure, food supply chains and governance systems would collapse in the wake of such a catastrophe. International aid would struggle to respond, and the region would face ecological and economic consequences lasting decades.
Both India and Pakistan possess the means to destroy each other — and themselves.
As tensions flare and military manoeuvres dominate headlines, it is this restraint — this enduring understanding of the true cost of nuclear war — that remains South Asia's most important line of defence.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
As Pakistani politicians continue to invoke nuclear threats and Pakistan continues to escalate this conflict, the underlying message from Islamabad is clear: the nuclear option, while not a first choice, is not off the table.
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel maintains military pressure on Gaza City ahead of planned offensive
Israel maintains military pressure on Gaza City ahead of planned offensive

Indian Express

time6 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Israel maintains military pressure on Gaza City ahead of planned offensive

The Israeli military maintained its pressure on Gaza City with heavy bombardments overnight, residents said, ahead of a Thursday meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers on plans to seize the enclave's largest city. The military a day earlier called up 60,000 reservists in a sign that the government was pressing ahead with the plan, despite international condemnation. Although one military official said that most reservists would not serve in combat and that the strategy to take Gaza City had not yet been finalised. Calling up tens of thousands of reservists is also likely to take weeks, giving time for mediators to attempt to bridge gaps over a new temporary ceasefire proposal that Hamas has accepted, but the Israeli government is yet to officially respond to. The proposal calls for a 60-day ceasefire and the release of 10 living hostages being held in Gaza by Hamas militants and of 18 bodies. In turn, Israel would release about 200 long-serving Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. The Israeli government has restated that all of the remaining 50 hostages held by militants in Gaza must be released at once. Israeli officials believe that around 20 of them are still alive. GAZA CITY SEIZURE Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with some cabinet ministers on Thursday to discuss his plan to seize Gaza City, according to Haaretz and other Israeli media, without giving more details. The plan was approved this month by the security cabinet, which he chairs, even though many of Israel's closest allies have urged the government to reconsider. Netanyahu is under pressure from some far-right members of his coalition to reject a temporary ceasefire and instead to continue the war and pursue the annexation of the territory. In Gaza City, thousands of Palestinians have left their homes as Israeli forces have escalated shelling on the Sabra and Tuffah neighbourhoods. Some families have left for shelters along the coast, while others have moved to central and southern parts of the enclave, according to residents there. 'We are facing a bitter-bitter situation, to die at home or leave and die somewhere else, as long as this war continues, survival is uncertain,' said Rabah Abu Elias, 67, a father of seven. 'In the news, they speak about a possible truce, on the ground, we only hear explosions and see deaths. To leave Gaza City or not isn't an easy decision to make,' he told Reuters by phone. Israeli tanks have been edging closer to densely populated Gaza City over the past ten days. Israeli officials have said evacuation notices would be issued to Palestinians there before the military moves in. Two more people have died of starvation and malnutrition in Gaza in the past 24 hours, the territory's health ministry said on Thursday. The new deaths raised the number of Palestinians who have died from such causes to 271, including 112 children, since the war began.

Wang Yi in Delhi: India and China have contrasting approaches to resolving tensions
Wang Yi in Delhi: India and China have contrasting approaches to resolving tensions

Indian Express

time6 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Wang Yi in Delhi: India and China have contrasting approaches to resolving tensions

On August 18, 2025, at the request of Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited India. He was received by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and had extensive discussions with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and NSA Doval. At the outset, it is appreciable that high-level political dialogue between the two sides is underway after a long pause of four years. And yet, the conclusions from the meeting have brought to light just how structural the differences are in India and China's approaches to resolving their tensions. Specifically, three narrative and policy implications are evident from the statements and readouts of the meeting, as well as post-meeting developments, that shed light on the faultlines. The first, is the distinction between which 'mutuals' each side wishes to focus on. As evident from the press release of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi focused on cultivating 'mutual respect and trust' between the two sides. Broadly, from Beijing's view, both the mutuals actually align with its own interest and agenda — mutual respect would translate to respect for its sensitivities, and mutual trust would require that New Delhi wholeheartedly place its trust in China. From the transcript of Jaishankar's opening remarks, it is evident that while India echoed the focus on mutual respect, its other preferred 'mutuals' pertain to sensitivity and interest. New Delhi demands that Beijing be sensitive to India's national interest and strategic autonomy (which often involve closer ties with the US), constraints, and regional power — a parity the latter simply cannot confer upon India. Though Wang did refer to both India and China as major powers, in the past, and at a global scale, Beijing's narrative on India has not reflected these admirable sentiments. Secondly, there seem to be no concessions on what matters to each side. Both sides are holding on to important leverage points even as they demonstrate willingness to negotiate. For starters, there is no mention in the Chinese readout of the meeting, of supporting India in fighting terror groups and cross-border terrorism in general. On the other hand, it is evident from both the transcript of Jaishankar's remarks and India's press release, that the issue of terrorism was raised quite vocally, and that Wang Yi 'concurred' that countering terrorism was a priority. The dissonance goes further. China is cognisant of the fact that for India, the primary challenge vis-à-vis countering terrorism is the Pakistani state. And yet, Wang nonetheless proceeded for a joint strategic dialogue with Pakistan's foreign minister, Ishaq Dar, a mere day after meeting with Jaishankar. It is understandable that the Dar-Wang meeting may have been scheduled in advance. But its announcement on the same day as Wang's India visit concluded, and the agenda itself — strengthening the China-Pakistan 'all-weather' partnership — sends all the wrong messages to New Delhi. Further, there was intense speculation surrounding whether China's export restrictions on rare earth magnets came up at the meeting, even though neither side's press releases focused on anything further than 'trade issues.' But when Indian media began citing sources confirming that there are concessions made on fertilisers, rare earths, and tunnel boring machines, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning took to the mic and clarified that she is not aware of such reports, and only confirmed that 'dialogue on export restrictions' is underway. India undertook a similar manoeuvre with the Taiwan issue. The Chinese press release stated in firm terms that Jaishankar said, 'Taiwan is a part of China.' Because the Indian press statement was not out at the time of the release by Beijing, the rumour mill was already churned, even though there was no mention of Taiwan in Jaishankar's remarks. To assuage the speculation, the Indian press release later clarified that India's statement was not that, but rather a more nuanced one in response to Wang bringing up the issue of Taiwan. New Delhi argued that its policy on Taiwan is unchanged, and that it will continue to maintain economic, cultural, and technological ties with Taiwan like the rest of the world. There was no mention of India's 'One China policy', which is a continued irritant for the Chinese since it stopped being mentioned in official communication from New Delhi in 2008. Third, and finally, there is a faultline in the trajectory both sides envision for normalisation. The Indian side specified that it looked forward to de-escalation and delimitation of the boundary, while the Chinese side's emphasis was on maintaining the 'peace and tranquility' that exists in their imagination. They also did not mention the progress of the Special Representative talks, which is vital from New Delhi's perspective to settle the boundary question. Clearly, Beijing sees merit in keeping the pressure on, and the way for it to do that is to maintain some instability on the border issue. For India, stability on that front remains non-negotiable. Another non-negotiable is India's relationship with the US. The lack of mutual trust with China, the hindrances in enhanced ties with Russia, and the mutual benefit in ties with the US all mean that New Delhi will want a way out of the current tensions with Washington. For China, this endeavour amounts to 'interference' in regional affairs, something Wang asked Jaishankar to 'eliminate,' as per China's press release. China's view of the world continues to be tinted with the hues of its competition with the US, and India comes across to Beijing as a pawn in the West's games. The quandary for India to deal with going forward, would be to manage its ties with China and the US if the two enter a state of managed competition (not a 'G-2' but at least, stable ties). In that regard, attempting to thaw relations with both sides is a must. Still, the power imbalance must further be offset through enhanced partnerships with middle economies, and through domestic investment and reform. The writer is Staff Research Analyst, Indo-Pacific Studies Programme, the Takshashila Institution, Bengaluru

Starmer aims to build 1.5 mn homes, but is the UK buying? London builders tell a slump story
Starmer aims to build 1.5 mn homes, but is the UK buying? London builders tell a slump story

First Post

time6 minutes ago

  • First Post

Starmer aims to build 1.5 mn homes, but is the UK buying? London builders tell a slump story

Despite UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's plans to build 1.5 million homes, London builders are taking longer to start home construction due to numerous reasons. Here are some of them While Starmer plans to build more houses, builders in the UK are struggling to complete projects. Reuters File Despite UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's plans to build 1.5 million homes, London builders are taking longer to start home construction amid a slump in demand. Analysis of about 700 sites of at least 100 private homes in London by broker Knight Frank showed that the media time taken for a housing project to kick off after getting full planning permission rose to a record 16.3 weeks last year. This was 31 per cent longer than the time it took to finish a project in 2023 and a whopping 80 per cent more compared with 2018. According to Bloomberg, British housebuilders have been under pressure from higher borrowing costs, crimping supply, while mortgage costs for buyers have weighed on demand. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As per the latest estimation by Bloomberg, the UK is likely to fall about 25 short of the 300,000 new homes it needs this year to meet its five-year target of 1.5 million homes. According to Knight Frank's analysis, which drew on data from researcher Molior London, housing projects in the UK's capital, London, which began in 2024, took an average of 26 months to start on site from initial planning application. That's an eight per cent jump since last year and eight days longer than in 2018. Why the delay According to the Bloomberg report, the delays have been driven by a lack of staff and funding in local authority planning departments and bottlenecks surrounding the affordable housing push. Not only this, but costlier stamp duty, higher mortgage rates, and tax changes impacting buy-to-let investors have also weakened demand and reduced developers' confidence to build. 'This data should be a serious wake-up call for politicians,' said James Barton, head of London land agency at Knight Frank. 'It sheds light on the realities of development – increasing delays to planning and a dramatic fall in start-on-sites signals a new low for the market.' Despite all these challenges, some UK developers have struck an optimistic tone as mortgage costs decline and government measures aimed at unblocking the planning system begin to take effect. Last week, Persimmon Plc, one of Britain's biggest housebuilders, said that it was on track to sell more homes this year and in 2026 on rising optimism around a recovery in transactions. However, only 3,950 new homes were sold in the first half of 2025 in London, the lowest since 2010, according to Molior. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Amid this, developers in the capital are under increased pressure from regulatory hurdles. According to The Guardian, the British Treasury is now examining the possibility of replacing stamp duty and introducing a new tax on the sale of UK homes worth more than £500,000. However, this is not sitting well with the developers. 'It is nonsensical to keep ramping up tax and regulation and not expect significant unintended consequences,' Knight Frank's Barton said while talking about the analysis. 'There is still huge demand and need for more homes to be delivered in London, but the current system is not effective and too rigid, with local and central policy creating an environment that is simply too high a risk for developers," Barton added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store