• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
PalestineSyria
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

Minimum Nuclear Deterrence Postures in South Asia: An Overview

This new report prepared by Rodney Jones and recently released by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, analyzes India's and Pakistan's nuclear force capabilities, policies, and postures, and their implications for military instability and conflict.

Link Copied
Published on Apr 10, 2002

This new report prepared by Rodney Jones and recently released by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency analyzes India's and Pakistan's nuclear force capabilities, policies, and postures, and their implications for military instability and conflict. Key findings of this study include:

Minimum Deterrence
After testing nuclear weapons in May 1998, both India and Pakistan embraced the language of "minimum deterrence." "Minimum" rapidly became a fixture of their public nuclear discourse. But neither India nor Pakistan clarified what "minimum" means. Does it imply the sufficiency of small numbers of nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons held in reserve? Low readiness or alert rates of a nuclear force? Renunciation of nuclear war fighting? Mainly counter-value targeting?

How Big Are Each Side's Nuclear Inventories?
How many operational weapons each side has is not known exactly. Analysis suggests that India has had a significant lead over Pakistan in "nuclear weapon equivalents" (NWEs) from weapons-grade nuclear material stockpiles. India is estimated to have had more than 100 NWEs from its weapons-dedicated facilities by 2000 -- at least twice and perhaps three times as many as Pakistan. Pakistan's annual rate of production of new NWEs from dedicated facilities increased in 1999, however, and now may approximate India's current rate.

Conventional Military Imbalance Accentuates Risk of Reliance on Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear war risks in South Asia are significant and not to be taken lightly. A potential for nuclear crisis instability is inherent in the conventional military imbalance between Pakistan and India. India's steadily growing conventional military superiority over Pakistan means that Pakistan could be driven to use nuclear weapons during a conventional conflict with India. Pakistan's posture which preserves a nuclear first-use option by default, reflects military and geographic asymmetries.

Nuclear Delivery Systems
India and Pakistan both have nuclear-capable aircraft that could be put on alert and used for nuclear delivery on short notice. Both have also acquired ballistic missile delivery systems. The nuclear combat readiness of the missiles is not entirely clear but each side seems intent on making the missiles combat capable.

Nuclear Strategy and Doctrine
As of October 2001, Pakistan had no officially stated strategic or tactical nuclear doctrines. But technical considerations and writings by experts suggest that its core nuclear strategy is to hold Indian cities hostage by countervalue targeting, against a conventional Indian invasion or preemptive air attack that could threaten Pakistan's defenses with collapse.

India also declined to publicly elaborate nuclear policy and doctrine beyond claiming a second-strike retaliatory posture. But India's National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) recommended in August 1999 that India rely on a posture of credible minimum deterrence -- a much more demanding criterion than "minimum deterrence" by itself. NSAB also urged India to build a triad of air-, ground-, and sea-based nuclear delivery systems. If India's nuclear strategy and forces evolve along such ambitious lines, common sense says this would not be a "minimum deterrence" posture.

Nuclear Command and Control
On nuclear command and control, Pakistan and India have followed different paths. In 1999, Pakistan set up a national command authority for nuclear decisions, and established a chain of joint-service planning and command within the military. India is believed to have left the formation of a formal nuclear command and control system in abeyance, and custody of nuclear weapons evidently stayed in the hands of the nuclear scientists.

Crisis Management
Kargil was the first unambiguous episode of crisis management between India and Pakistan as nuclear-armed rivals. It may have sobered those who had assumed India's "minimum nuclear deterrent" would thwart any Pakistani risk-taking. Kargil showed that there is a high risk of nuclear conflict in the subcontinent. The outcome of Kargil, however, may have encouraged emergence of a Pakistani view that the nuclear deterrent is an instrument only of last resort.

Additional Resources:

  • "Minimum Nuclear Deterrence Postures in South Asia: An Overview," Prepared by Rodney Jones and Released by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 3 April 2002 (pdf)
  • Non-Proliferation Project's South Asia Resource Page
  • Policy Architects International
  • Defense Threat Reduction Agency



Click here to Return to Proliferation News and Resources

South Asia

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Research
    The Military and Private Business Actors in the Global South: The Politics of Market Access

    The interaction of national armed forces and private business sectors offers a useful lens for viewing the politics of numerous countries of the so-called Global South. A rising trend of military political activism—often accompanied by military commercial activity—underlines the importance of drivers and outcomes in these relationships.

      Yezid Sayigh, Hamza Meddeb

  • Commentary
    The Gaza War and the Rest of the World

    Scholars from Carnegie’s global network comment on how the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is affecting their areas of interest, and what the implications of this may be.

      • +11

      Maha Yahya, Rosa Balfour, Judy Dempsey, …

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Calculations in Kabul

    Turkey’s success in finding a role in Afghanistan could bring its leadership valuable benefits.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Fatal Life

    In an interview on the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Peter Bergen discusses his new biography of Osama bin Laden.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Autonomy Minus a Strategy

    In an interview, Rosa Balfour discusses European tensions with the United States over the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal.

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.