India and Pakistan try red lines of nuclear rivalry

With approximately 170 nuclear head, India and Pakistan have evolved a unique approach to the armed conflict. The two parties are ready to use military force, but with precaution and according to the unwritten rules that aim to avoid climbing.

The last Great War between the two countries – the War of Kargil in 1999 – took place in the shadow of successful nuclear tests on each side the previous year and typified a new era in ultra caution: only land forces were used.

In recent years, however, these informal rules have been released, with the two countries that mark weapons and tactics that are not seen in the nuclear era. The aerial power was witnessed for the first time in 2019, with strikes in Balakot that reached the indisputable Pakistani territory for the first time in almost half a century.

This week’s fighting began with air attacks, too, Launched by India Both in Pakistan and at the Kashmir administered in Pakistan. But the attacks, which Islamabad said that they killed 32, were deeper in Pakistan than before, a strike was 100 km from the border, and simultaneously between various goals, including urban areas.

“A really important threshold that both India and Pakistan have respected was the use of air power. The new nuclear era.

“India and Pakistan are in a place where these types of skirmishes, in which they both use air power against each other, are apparently tolerable on each side.”

Prior to its public nuclear weapons test in 1998, the wars between the countries were much more intense and involved large -scale conventional military conflicts, with thousands of victims on each side. However, in the post-nuclear era, the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons has made them think twice before heating.

Muhammad Aurangzeb, PakistanThe Minister of Finance described the nuclear arsenal of his country as the “great equator” that helps to protect Pakistan against his much older neighbor.

“These are two nuclear armed countries. For me, this is the great equal,” he told Financial Times on Wednesday. “This should lead to deterrence on both sides … never should never go into this space.”

But almost three decades of managed conflicts, almost choreography, may have been hit on both parties, believing that climbing can always be controlled. The increasingly sectarian tensions that feed the geopolitical rivalry between the Islamic Republic and Hindu -dominated India have also pressured their military leadership to ignore the precedent and to test the limits when they calibrate answers.

“Nuclear domain is a very important thing. It is a paradigm that must be understood deeply,” said Lieutenant General Raj Shukla, a retired Indian army commander and security analyst. “We know there are red lines. We will respect them.”

“But we know what are the red lines, and not the red lines that mark you as a cover for a horror attack,” he added, referring to the Kill more than two dozen civiliansEspecially the tourists, from gunmen to India, Kashmir last month, which New Delhi communicated with Islamabad.

“It’s not about using nuclear sound,” he said.

Pakistani officials deny any connection to the massacre, asking for a “neutral” investigation of the attack and suggest that it may have been a false Indian flag plot, which in India denies. Meanwhile, Pakistan accuses India leaning militants to western Pakistanthat India denies.

Elizabeth Threlkeld, a Center Stimson, Washington -based, said that the suspicions and mutual recriminations shared by both parties “make it difficult to decay. And the risk of driving driving in the future of future (militant) attacks.”

Said that the risk would increase if Cross -border military strikes It became a “more standardized” way for the enemies of the South Asia to respond to domestic terrorism.

Pakistan Western diplomats said that both countries wanted the issue of external support for militant groups to include in any larger accreditation or cooperation, such as in military and nuclear issues.

Maleeha Lodhi, an ex -Pakistani ambassador in the United States and the United Nations who is now a political analyst, acknowledged the “stability” of nuclear deterrent “has been tested” on each side, but always within the limits.

“The war limited under a nuclear overflow is dangerous, but both parties have participated in the past and know when it should be stopped,” he said.

Shortly after the Indian retaliation strike in Pakistan, the direct line was used among its military chiefs of operations, which indicates that a significant deconfection channel has been opened, he added.

But little doubt that other red lines, such as refraining from the use of ballistic missiles or fighting at sea, will cross if the current conflict among the neighbors is still longer.

The “nuclear signaling” has also become more common. In 2019, the Nuclear Missile Submarine of India eliminated its launch tubes, a visible indication of the preparation, during the border skirmish, according to Panda.

In the meantime, Pakistan tested two short -range ballistic missiles capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons days before Wednesday attack.

“The fear of nuclear climbing remains on Indian and Pakistani leaders,” Panda said, adding that “good news” is that the leaders of the two countries use conflicts to achieve essentially political goals “while positioning themselves for decalament.”

“The bad news is that its ability to control the sequence of events in a crisis that moves rapidly like this, with the fog of the thick war, with the misinformation on the two parties, with nationalist populations asking for remuneration, it becomes much more difficult to do.”

Pakistan has weaker rules about nuclear use, partly a response to a weaker conventional military man. “Pakistan obviously believes that his nuclear weapons are enough to compensate for conventional inferiority and I hope that India does not want to try if this is a certain attacking Pakistan with important conventional forces,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project of the North -Americans Federation.

Pakistan has been strengthening its conventional forces with Chinese help, which could have the positive effect of using the resource on nuclear weapons. The Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal includes planes, ballistic missiles and cruise ships thrown by land and cruise missiles thrown by sea.

India’s nuclear strategy seems to be increasingly focused on long -range weapons, potentially able to achieve goals throughout China. This indicates a change of approach beyond its traditional deterrent against Pakistan.

While the two countries have a similar number of heads of war, India has tried to improve their delivery systems. He has built two submarines capable of delivering nuclear ballistic missiles with a third party.

He has also successfully tested a new MIRV, or multiple head missiles.

Although resorting to these weapons is still unthinkable, so is the perspective of losing a conventional war, as Pakistan did in 1971 when the war ended the country essentially cut in half.

“They want to see nuclear weapons as a deterrent,” said a foreign official in southern Asia. “Certainly, no one wants to approach instead of this threshold. This does not mean that there is no evil calculation.”