• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Toby Dalton",
    "Michael Krepon"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Arms Control"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

A Normal Nuclear Pakistan

Pakistan’s military leadership can choose to accept success in achieving a “strategic” deterrent against India, or it can choose to continue to compete with India in the pursuit of “full spectrum” deterrence.

Link Copied
By Toby Dalton and Michael Krepon
Published on Aug 27, 2015

Source: The Stimson Center and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Pakistan has worked hard and successfully to build diverse nuclear capabilities. It will retain these capabilities for the foreseeable future as a necessary deterrent against perceived existential threats from India. At this juncture, Pakistan’s military leadership in Rawalpindi can choose to accept success in achieving a “strategic” deterrent against India — a nuclear force posture sufficient to prevent limited nuclear exchanges and a major conventional war. Alternatively, it can choose to continue to compete with India in the pursuit of “full spectrum” deterrence, which would entail open-ended nuclear re- quirements against targets both near and far from Pakistan. These choices would lead Pakistan to two starkly different nuclear futures and places in the global nuclear order.

Pakistan is now competing successfully with — and in some respects is outcompeting — India. Paki- stan operates four plutonium production reactors; India operates one. Pakistan has the capability to produce perhaps 20 nuclear warheads annually; India appears to be producing about five warheads an- nually. But given its larger economy and sizable nuclear infrastructure, India is able to outcompete Pa- kistan in fissile material and warhead production if it chooses to do so. Pakistan has prepared for this eventuality by investing in a large nuclear weapons production complex. Whether New Delhi chooses to compete more intensely or not, it is a losing proposition for Pakistan to sustain, let alone expand, its current infrastructure to produce greater numbers of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. Just as the Soviet Union’s large nuclear arsenal was of no help whatsoever for its manifold economic and societal weaknesses, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons do not address its internal challenges.

Pakistan seeks to be viewed as a “normal” state possessing nuclear weapons, as exemplified by member- ship in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Its diplomats seek a civil-nuclear cooperation agreement similar to the one accorded to India. A commercial pathway to being mainstreamed into the global nuclear order is highly unlikely for Pakistan, which lacks the commercial leverage and support that resulted in a nuclear deal for India. A different path toward mainstreaming is available to Pakistan, via nuclear-weapon-related initiatives. Having succeeded in achieving the requirements of “strategic” deterrence, Pakistan is in a position to consider nuclear initiatives that would clarify its commitment to strengthening nuclear norms, regimes, and practices, and would address widely held perceptions that its nuclear deterrence practices are a major source of danger in South Asia.

We propose that Pakistan consider five nuclear weapon-related initiatives:

  • Shift declaratory policy from “full spectrum” to “strategic” deterrence.
  • Commit to a recessed deterrence posture and limit production of short-range delivery vehicles and tactical nuclear weapons.
  • Lift Pakistan’s veto on Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations and reduce or stop fissile material production.
  • Separate civilian and military nuclear facilities.
  • Sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty without waiting for India.

None of these initiatives would impair Pakistan’s successful accomplishment of strategic deterrence against India. They would, however, require difficult and fundamental adjustments to thinking about nuclear weapons and Pakistan’s deeply ingrained habits of transactional bargaining. Precisely because these initiatives would be so difficult and unusual for Pakistan, they would change perceptions about Pakistan and its place in the global nuclear order. As such, they could facilitate Pakistan’s entrance into the nuclear mainstream, while strengthening nonproliferation norms, bolstering global disarmament hopes, and setting the bar higher for new entrants into the NSG.

The global nuclear order will not be strengthened by trying to accommodate a Pakistan that is greatly increasing its nuclear capabilities while rejecting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Nor will Pakistan become a normal, nuclear state by competing with India or by harboring groups that could spark a war with India. The international community is unlikely to accommodate Pakistan’s desire to enter the nuclear mainstream without corresponding steps by Paki- stan to align aspects of its nuclear policy and practices closer with international norms. The steps we propose lend themselves to mainstreaming. More importantly, these steps would advance Pakistan’s national, social, and economic security interests...

Read the full report here.

About the Authors

Toby Dalton

Senior Fellow and Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program

Toby Dalton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment. An expert on nonproliferation and nuclear energy, his work addresses regional security challenges and the evolution of the global nuclear order.

Michael Krepon

Michael Krepon co-founded the Stimson Center in 1989. He worked previously in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill.

Authors

Toby Dalton
Senior Fellow and Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program
Toby Dalton
Michael Krepon

Michael Krepon co-founded the Stimson Center in 1989. He worked previously in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill.

SecurityNuclear PolicyArms ControlSouth AsiaPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Macron Makes France a Great Middle Power

    France has stopped clinging to notions of being a great power and is embracing the middle power moment. But Emmanuel Macron has his work cut out if he is to secure his country’s global standing before his term in office ends.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Commentary
    How Can Europe Renew a Stalled Enlargement Process?

    Despite offering security benefits to candidates and the EU alike, the enlargement agenda appears stalled. Why is progress not being made, and is it time for Europe to rethink its approach?

      Sylvie Goulard, Gerald Knaus

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    To Survive, the EU Must Split

    Leaning into a multispeed Europe that includes the UK is the way Europeans don’t get relegated to suffering what they must, while the mighty United States and China do what they want.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Trump speaking to a room of reporters
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Unpacking Trump’s National Security Strategy

    Carnegie scholars examine the crucial elements of a document that’s radically different than its predecessors.

      • Cecily Brewer
      • +18

      James M. Acton, Saskia Brechenmacher, Cecily Brewer, …

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Faces the Gone-Rogue Doctrine

    The hyper-personalized new version of global sphere-of-influence politics that Donald Trump wants will fail, as it did for Russia. In the meantime, Europe must still deal with a disruptive former ally determined to break the rules.

      Thomas de Waal

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.