ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 10th August. Click Here for more information.
Source: The post is based on the article “Arun Prakash writes: Why India-Pakistan needs a nuclear dialogue — whatever the political situation” published in “The Indian express” on 24th July 2023.
Syllabus: GS2- India and its neighborhood-relations.
News: The article discusses the implications of Pakistan’s nuclear policies and comments made by Lt. General Khalid Kidwai. Kidwai speaks about Pakistan’s Full Spectrum Deterrence and its nuclear capabilities, which are aimed at India. The article highlights the potential dangers of this stance and compares it to Cold War-era strategies. It also touches on India’s response and its nuclear policy. The author emphasizes the importance of a nuclear dialogue between India and Pakistan to reduce tensions.
About India-Pakistan nuclear status
India’s Nuclear Status
Conducted “Shakti” nuclear tests in 1998.
Has a “no first use” policy.
India’s 2003 Nuclear Doctrine espoused a “credible minimum deterrent” and promised “massive retaliation” in response to a nuclear first strike.
Pakistan’s Nuclear Status
Celebrated 1998 tests as “Yom-e-Taqbir”.
Developed Full Spectrum Deterrence against India’s Cold Start Doctrine.
It has weapons ranging from “zero meters” to 2,750 km.
Has capability to directly target India’s nuclear arsenal.
Why India-Pakistan needs a nuclear dialogue?
Past Actions: Both nations conducted significant nuclear tests in 1998, increasing tensions. These tests moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight, indicating global concern.
New Policies: Pakistan introduced the Full Spectrum Deterrence, specifically against India’s Cold Start Doctrine.
Changing Weaponry: Pakistan’s mention of weapons ranging from “zero meters” hints at development of tactical nuclear weapons, increasing the risk of a nuclear confrontation.
Cold War Resemblance: Pakistan’s nuclear approach mirrors the risky Cold War tactics of “flexible response”, which had potential for rapid escalation.
Counter Claims: Kidwai suggests that Pakistan can respond equally, if not more severely, to India’s “massive retaliation” strategy.
Direct Threats: Kidwai’s assertion that Pakistan can target India’s nuclear arsenal directly adds a dangerous dimension to their rivalry.
India’s Unchanged Stance: Despite regional nuclear advancements, India has maintained its nuclear doctrine, potentially requiring reevaluation.
Preventing Escalation: Given the ever-changing nuclear dynamics, dialogue can prevent misunderstandings, reduce tensions, and deter potential confrontations.
Transparency and Trust: Engaging in talks can foster mutual trust, leading to transparency about intentions, reducing chances of unwarranted aggression.
Why is there a need to “revise and update” India’s nuclear doctrine?
Pakistan’s Shift: Pakistan’s Full Spectrum Deterrence contrasts with India’s existing doctrine.
Tactical Weapons: Pakistan hints at developing tactical nuclear weapons, challenging India’s stance.
Counter Claims: Pakistan can match India’s “massive retaliation”.
Regional Advancements: Both China and Pakistan have modernized their nuclear arsenals.
Doctrine Stagnation: India’s doctrine has remained unchanged since 2003, potentially outdated.
Updating India’s doctrine ensures alignment with current regional threats and nuclear dynamics.
