Kashmir conflict: A look at how India and Pakistan became nuclear powers
India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed nations, saw a decades-old conflict reignite May 7 as a terror attack in the disputed region of Kashmir led India to carry out cross-border airstrikes.
India's government blames Pakistan for an April 22 terror attack that killed 26 tourists in India-administered Kashmir. Islamabad denies involvement.
The Pakistani military claims it shot down Indian planes during the airstrikes and it fired artillery across the disputed border. Pakistan promised further retaliation.
More: Why India attacked Pakistan, its neighbor and nuclear rival
The rising tensions have alarmed world leaders, to include President Donald Trump. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on May 7 the fighting is "so terrible" and said he wants the warring countries to work it out.
"I get along with both. I know both very well," he said. "I want to see them stop. And hopefully they can stop now. They've gone tit-for-tat, so hopefully they can stop now."
He added: "And if I can do anything to help, I will − I will be there."
Although Trump did not directly reference the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the two countries, concern about the countries' nuclear arsenals has historically spiked during perious of conflict.
Here's how India and Pakistan developed their nuclear weapons.
Related: Putin, Ukraine, long-range missiles and why there's talk about WWIII
In the late 1950s, India established its nuclear program with assistance from the U.S. and Canada, who provided nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel. The program was explicitly peaceful in its stated intent, and India agreed to safeguards meant to prevent the reactors and their fuel from being used for weapons.
Nuclear nonproliferation experts say India exploited a loophole in the safeguards when it began secretly reprocessing spent fuel into plutonium in the 1960s − one of the two main methods of producing fissile material for a nuclear weapon.
New Delhi's secret bomb development program officially began in 1964, but it reached a fever pitch by the early 1970s when multiple teams of Indian physicists simultaneously developed different weapons components needed to create a nuclear explosion from the reprocessed plutonium.
More: Timeline of India and Pakistan's military conflicts
The country's first nuclear test, code-named Smiling Buddha, took place in 1974 in a remote portion of the country's northwest. India claimed the explosion was "peaceful," but the international community concluded (and lead scientists later revealed) they had detonated a bomb.
In response, Canada halted nuclear cooperation with India. Although the U.S. did not impose sanctions or terminate nuclear assistance to New Delhi, the failure of the safeguards helped inspire Congress to pass the 1978 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act.
Over the ensuing decades, India developed stronger thermonuclear weapons and − to the world's surprise − successfully tested them in 1998. Today, New Delhi controls around 172 nuclear weapons, according to the Arms Control Association.
The story of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program all but begins with A.Q. Khan, a metallurgist born in pre-partition India and raised in newly independent Pakistan.
Khan pursued graduate study in Europe and in 1972, he started working for a nuclear engineering consulting firm in Amsterdam where he gained access to information on ultra-centrifuges that were able to highly enrich radioactive uranium — the second main method of producing fissile material for a nuclear weapon.
More: India strikes Pakistan in aftermath of Kashmir tourist killings
After India handed Pakistan a humiliating military defeat in a 1971 war and conducted the Smiling Buddha nuclear test in 1974, Khan wrote to Pakistan's prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and offered to spearhead a nuclear weapons program for his home country. Khan successfully smuggled information, photos, blueprints, and even components of the centrifuges to the Pakistan embassy in the Netherlanda before successfully escaping to lead the program.
Khan led secret production efforts (in parallel to another Pakistani weapons program) that successfully yielded nuclear warheads in 1986, though they were not tested until 1998 − mere weeks after India tested its new thermonuclear weapons.
Khan also was linked with distributing nuclear weapons technology to rogue states including North Korea, Iran, and Libya.
Pakistan today has approximately 170 nuclear warheads, according to the Arms Control Association.
Contributing: Francesca Chambers
If you have news tips related to nuclear threats or U.S. national security, please contact Davis Winkie via email at dwinkie@usatoday.com or via the Signal encrypted messaging app at 770-539-3257. Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: How India and Pakistan got their nuclear weapons
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
How Hard Will Musk Fight Republicans' Budget Bill?
Can Musk kill the budget bill? Elon Musk hasn't stopped criticizing the budget bill that he has called a 'disgusting abomination.' In fact, he appears to be just getting started. The debate in Washington now is how far Musk will go to try to defeat a bill that — by the assessment of Musk, several Republicans and now nonpartisan watchdogs — will vastly add to the federal debt. 'KILL THE BILL,' Musk posted on X on Wednesday, a message he urged followers to press with members of Congress. He has turned a majority of his feed into a stream of reposts of content criticizing the legislation and denouncing its effect on the nation's $36 trillion debt load. A string of assessments suggest that the bill will add to the debt. The most consequential, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimated that the House version of the plan would add $2.4 trillion over the next decade, given both the roughly $3.8 trillion tax cut at its core and additional spending. (Other estimates are even higher, including the Penn Wharton Budget Model's: $2.8 trillion.) A Republican counter: Attack the messenger. The Trump administration advanced hard-to-believe claims about C.B.O. staff members' partisanship, and arguments that its analysis ignores projected economic growth. That said, a previous nonpartisan analysis of the House bill found that the tax cuts would generate nearly no additional economic growth, and even conservatives found the budget office's analysis credible. 'When all the models are in unison,' Erica York, the vice president for federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, told The Times, 'it really doesn't make sense to triple down on the strategy to blame the scorekeeper.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
18 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Coal Power Costs Climb Just as Trump Wants to Prop Up the Fuel
While President Donald Trump is pushing to prop up the US coal industry, generating power from the dirtiest fossil fuel is becoming increasingly expensive and uncompetitive, according to a new report. Generating electricity from coal cost $46 per megawatt-hour in 2024, up from $36 in 2021, according to a study Thursday from Energy Innovation Policy & Technology LLC, a San Francisco-based energy and climate think tank. The shift is driven by rising fuel and maintenance costs, and has been compounded as utilities retire more plants.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Party Primaries Need Ranked Choice Voting
Democratic voters in New Jersey must choose a nominee for governor next week from a crowded and contentious field - and polls show no one truly catching fire. The front-runner polls at about 30% of the vote. At least three other candidates can fairly claim that theyre in second place. Two more appear to have double-digit support. Meanwhile, a quarter of New Jersey Democrats remain undecided - and the race just keeps getting more negative. Its a textbook example of an election that would benefit from ranked choice voting. RCV is the tool that solves precisely this problem: how to determine a majority winner with the strongest support from a field of several candidates. And while 2025 is a quieter election year, well surely see this same problem - with RCV as a clear solution - in dozens of marquee races in 2026, with large candidate fields already forming on both the Republican and Democratic sides to fill open gubernatorial and Senate seats. Voters demand elected officials who are accountable to a majority of us, not just a narrow base. But they also deserve choice, and New Jersey Democrats have a lot of it here. The Garden States gubernatorial field is a deep one with two members of Congress, the mayors of the states two largest cities, a longtime senate president, and a union leader all representing a variety of ideologies and backgrounds. With the June 10 primary fast approaching, several recent polls show that U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill holds the lead - but her advantage differs widely in each, and so does the candidate in second. Emerson shows Sherrill at 28%, and three candidates tied at second with 11% - Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, and U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer. Teachers union leader Sean Spiller and former senate president Steve Sweeney follow close behind. An InsiderNJ poll finds Sherrill with 31%, Baraka at 21%, and Fulop at 19%, with the others closely clustered around 10%. Rutgers found things even tighter: Sherill with 17%, followed by Fulop with 12%, then Spiller at 10%, with Baraka and Gottheimer tied at 9%. Its entirely possible that the "winner" could end up somewhere in the low 30s - meaning nearly 70% of voters preferred someone other than the nominee. What a mess for voters. There are several distinct groupings of candidates, some more moderate, some more progressive, some more inclined to work with the Trump administration and some vowing to fight it. Theyre all dividing the vote. The polls are so scattered as to be no help at all. Voters are stuck trying to guess the strongest among their favorites. But what if there were an election with multiple candidates, satisfied voters, and a united and strong party? Ranked choice voting makes it possible. Instead of voting for just a single candidate, voters have the power to rank the field in order: first, second, third, and so on. If someone wins a majority right away, they win. If no one does, the candidates at the bottom are eliminated. If your candidate is still in the race, your vote stays with them. If theyre knocked out, your vote simply counts for your second choice. The "instant runoff" continues until someone wins 50%. Its a nonpartisan solution that protects choice and majority winners, and puts voters first. Unsurprisingly, its good for parties too: Research shows that candidates who win a majority in their primaries - which RCV delivers - do better in competitive elections. And instead of a brutal campaign leaving bruises and hard feelings, the party is united heading into the fall. Everywhere RCV is used, from Maine to Alaska, from New York City to Utah, voters say that they like it and find it easy to use. Four years ago, Virginia Republicans faced a similar textbook case: a crowded primary for governor, candidates from multiple wings of the party, even the threat of a divisive third-party challenge from one candidate if they didnt win the nomination. The party turned to ranked choice voting to solve this problem. Glenn Youngkin was the majority winner. He had a unified party behind him - and in November, he defeated the former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe (who had trouble unifying Democrats after winning a four-way primary without RCV). If theres one thing voters want more of these days, its choice. Poll after poll finds huge majorities of us frustrated with the candidates were given and longing for more options. But we also need the tools to make the most of greater choice - instead of it causing its own problems, like driving further polarization, frustrating voters, and making our campaign cycles ever more toxic. Ranked choice voting allows lots of choices and majority winners to go hand in hand. In the end, that leads to stronger nominees, more unified parties, and most importantly, more satisfied voters. Meredith Sumpter is president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections.
