Nuclear Brinkmanship and Global Stakes

As tensions escalate between India and Pakistan, the prospect of a full-scale military conflict—potentially involving nuclear weapons—has reemerged as a critical threat to regional and global stability. What began as a series of cross-border hostilities has evolved into the most serious confrontation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours in decades, raising alarm among policymakers and global security experts.

Last week, India launched a wide-scale air offensive involving over 75 fighter jets, including its advanced French-built Rafales, targeting alleged terrorist infrastructure deep within Pakistani territory. Islamabad responded swiftly, deploying missile strikes and drone swarms against Indian military installations in Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab. The attacks have reportedly struck military bases and radar stations, with unconfirmed reports of short-range ballistic missile use on both sides.

While a fragile ceasefire was brokered over the weekend—with U.S. President Donald Trump announcing the development via social media—its longevity remains uncertain. Both India and Pakistan have accused each other of immediate violations, and inflammatory rhetoric continues to dominate state media and diplomatic channels.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif issued a stark warning following the Indian strikes, stating that “if India imposes an all-out war on the region... then at any time a nuclear war can break out.” Pakistan, with an economy roughly one-tenth the size of India’s and a significantly smaller conventional military force, maintains a doctrine that includes the first use of tactical nuclear weapons under extreme conditions. India, for its part, has adopted a “no first use” policy, though strategic ambiguity has grown in recent years.

Both nations possess extensive nuclear arsenals. A 2008 study by climate scientists projected that even a limited nuclear exchange—100 Hiroshima-sized bombs—could trigger a global “nuclear winter,” decimating agriculture and resulting in up to a billion deaths worldwide due to famine.

The current crisis must be understood in the context of evolving global alliances. Over the past two decades, the United States has increasingly prioritised its relationship with India as part of a broader Indo-Pacific strategy to contain China’s influence. This has included expansive defense cooperation, intelligence sharing, and high-tech weapons transfers.

By contrast, Pakistan’s designation as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA)—awarded in 2004 for its logistical support during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan—has yielded diminishing returns. While the MNNA status allows for priority access to American military training and hardware, it offers no binding defense commitments. In today’s geopolitical climate, it serves more as a symbolic relic than a reliable strategic assurance.

Pakistan, in turn, has deepened its strategic partnership with China, particularly through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. CPEC not only provides China with critical access to the Arabian Sea, bypassing vulnerable chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca, but also tightens military and economic bonds between Beijing and Islamabad.

The India-Pakistan conflict is not unfolding in isolation. It is occurring amid a global breakdown of diplomatic norms and the resurgence of great power rivalries. The U.S. confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, the ongoing war in Gaza, and intensifying military exercises in the Taiwan Strait all contribute to a heightened risk environment where localized conflicts can quickly escalate into broader conflagrations.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in his memoir, revealed that the world came dangerously close to a nuclear exchange during the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot standoff. Today’s crisis appears even more precarious. Yet, senior American officials have offered minimal engagement. Vice President JD Vance recently remarked that the South Asian conflict is “fundamentally none of our business,” a position that reflects an alarming shift toward strategic disengagement at a moment when diplomatic intervention is urgently needed.

Perhaps most troubling is the normalisation of nuclear brinkmanship. What was once considered unthinkable—open threats of nuclear use, cross-border strikes against military infrastructure, and the targeting of civilian centers—is now playing out with disturbing frequency and a sense of inevitability.

Both India and Pakistan are operating within an increasingly permissive international environment. The erosion of arms control treaties, the militarisation of foreign policy, and the failure of multilateral institutions to address flash-points effectively have all contributed to a strategic vacuum.

As the specter of nuclear conflict looms over South Asia, the international community must act decisively. Immediate steps should include the re-establishment of direct military hotlines, renewed Track II diplomatic initiatives, and serious multilateral engagement aimed at de-escalation and arms control.

The India-Pakistan conflict is not merely a regional issue—it is a critical test of the world’s capacity to manage conflict in an age of multipolar instability and nuclear proliferation. The consequences of failure are almost unimaginable.