ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A brutal assault on tourists in the contested Kashmir area has exacerbated tension between India and Pakistan. India blames Pakistan for supporting the attack, a claim Pakistan refutes.
The two nuclear-armed neighbors have reduced diplomatic engagements, hinted at suspending significant treaties, and expelled each other’s citizens. This is the most severe deterioration in relations since 2019, following a suicide bombing that claimed the lives of 40 Indian soldiers in Kashmir. India accused Pakistan, but Pakistan denied the allegations.
India has suggested the potential for a limited military strike in response. Pakistan has stated it would counter any military actions.
Both countries possess nuclear weapons primarily for deterrence purposes. Over the years, India and Pakistan have developed significant nuclear arsenals as a means to prevent conflicts, rather than initiate them. India’s nuclear strategy is characterized by its “no first use” policy, indicating it will resort to nuclear retaliation only if faced with a nuclear assault from another nation on its forces or territories.
Conversely, Pakistan’s nuclear strategy centers around full spectrum deterrence, incorporating tactical nuclear weapons as a counter to both nuclear threats and conventional military incursions from its larger neighbor. While Pakistan hasn’t ruled out initial use of nuclear arms if facing a grave threat, starting a nuclear war with India is largely seen as untenable due to India’s superior military capability. Historically, Pakistan has lost multiple conventional wars against India, thus it relies on its nuclear weapons to prevent invasion or large-scale attacks.
The specifics of each other’s nuclear capabilities remain unknown to both nations. India launched its first nuclear test in 1974, with Pakistan following suit in 1988. Research suggests Pakistan might possess approximately 170 warheads, closely matched by India’s 172, although some accounts speculate Pakistan may actually have around 200.
Despite years of tension, India and Pakistan have agreed to a pact that prohibits assaults on each other’s nuclear facilities. They mutually exchange lists annually detailing their nuclear establishments, a practice maintained consistently for 34 years. However, neither country is a member of the global Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aims to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons.
Typically, both India and Pakistan choose confined, calculated military strikes on specific targets. Historical tensions have led to targeted attacks and counterattacks but allowed both nations room for de-escalation. The border region frequently experiences clashes.
India faces significant domestic pressure to respond decisively, particularly because many victims in the recent attack were Indian nationals. After a similar event in 2019, India launched an airstrike on what it cited as a terrorist training camp within Pakistan. Pakistan countered, claiming it downed Indian fighter jets and captured a pilot, who was later released, gradually easing the tensions.
Currently, both nations have avoided major confrontations. Pakistan has reported sightings of Indian fighter aircraft in its airspace and claims to have neutralized Indian drones. Any forthcoming retaliation might occur along the Line of Control, aiming at military or militant objectives, albeit bearing the risk of misjudgment given that any casualties could further inflame public opinion.
The international community is increasingly drawn into the crisis. Amidst ongoing global conflicts and economic turmoil, a new war in South Asia is unwelcome. The U.S. Secretary of State has expressed intentions to mediate, encouraging international efforts to stabilize the situation.
Countries allied with Pakistan, particularly in the Gulf, have shown a preference for maintaining peace and security, whereas India has engaged with the G7 about the intensifying crisis. Meanwhile, China, as a key player in the region, has advocated for restraint from both nations. Similarly, the United Nations has called for de-escalation, underscoring a universal aversion to further conflict.