In a rapidly changing security environment of South Asia, the lack of Pakistan’s formally declared nuclear doctrine may be a strategic liability. As regional instability increases and neighboring states come up with better, formally declared nuclear doctrines, Pakistan could benefit from a transparent and explicit doctrine. It would not only serve the national interests of Pakistan, but also promote regional stability.

It is necessary to evaluate Pakistan’s present nuclear policies in order to comprehend the significance of a publicly stated nuclear doctrine at the present time. A counterweight to India’s conventional military dominance has always been the rationale for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.

While not much can be said about the actual nuclear posture since it is not formally declared, it has generally aligned with the principles of credible minimum deterrence. Still, there is a need to codify the nuclear policy in a transparent doctrine. The ambiguity in nuclear doctrines about deterrence creates problems, but a completely uncodified nuclear posture can be problematic in addressing crucial regional issues. It potentially leads to misperceptions in the region that may trigger nuclear warfare in the worst-case scenario.

A transparent nuclear doctrine will show Pakistan’s commitment to responsible ownership of nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, a declared doctrine could serve multiple purposes. It will clarify the country’s threshold for nuclear use, reassure the international community of Pakistan’s restraint, and communicate the state’s stance on key issues with the regional institutions.

More importantly, a transparent nuclear doctrine will show Pakistan’s commitment to responsible ownership of nuclear weapons.

Also read: Unravelling Globalization: Put Your House In Order. Don’t Put All Eggs In One Basket

Bringing the context in front, we see that South Asia’s security environment is quite complex and has always been troubled with rivalries. The nuclear arsenals of both Pakistan and India are not only a product of bilateral tensions, but also influenced by the actions and nuclear policies of China. China, being a major regional power, has played a part in the nuclear actions of both India and Pakistan.

Also read: Pakistan’s Zero-Sum Strategic Dilemma

For example, India, which embodies a “no first-use” policy, also leaves the potential open for preventing counterforce strikes. The advanced missile defense systems of India and the rapid modernization have prompted Pakistan to reconsider how it has designed its deterrence posture.

In response to the policies mentioned above, Pakistan has developed a suite of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs). The intention behind these TNWs is to deter conventional military attacks. One disadvantage with this policy is that it could lead to potentially destabilizing situations. For example, without a formally declared posture, India might interpret these policies as an escalation. This escalation will further escalate to a full-scale nuclear response.

If Pakistan declares a formal nuclear doctrine, one of the advantages would be the controlled articulation of circumstances under which the state is to consider the use of said TNWs. In a formally declared doctrine, the red lines that must not be crossed in order to avoid military reaction are clear. An undeclared one, on the other hand, has no such clear indication.

Rational deterrence theory suggests that there must be clear and credible policies between two adversaries in order to make nuclear deterrence effective. It is not to say that ambiguities cannot be beneficial in any regard. Ambiguities may prove to be in your favor when the aggressors are not clear about your response. But when there is excessive ambiguity in nuclear policies, the predictability of nuclear actions is affected, especially in regions that have multiple nuclear powers and historically tense relations.

For example, for Pakistan, a formal doctrine will clarify its posture as one that is built up on the idea of deterrence rather than aggression. This will provide a clear narrative to adversaries that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are intended solely to prevent aggression, and not to seek regional dominance. Moreover, it will align with the international norms and suggest that the state behavior displayed by Pakistan is responsible.

Reducing ambiguity in the nuclear policies will reduce the economic expenditure on expensive arsenal or deterrent measures.

Internationally, Pakistan’s nuclear program has been viewed with skepticism. This is partly because of the fact that we have seen historical cases of expansion in the nuclear program. This idea, combined with the undefined nuclear policies, has led countries to believe that the nuclear program of Pakistan is unreliable. On the other hand, if the ideas are clear, such as if Pakistan stands on the concept of no-first-use stance or credible minimum deterrence, Pakistan can improve its image as a more responsible nuclear state.

Moreover, the economic constraints faced by Pakistan further highlight the need for transparent nuclear policies. In recent times, the state has engaged in costly arm races. Reducing ambiguity in the nuclear policies will reduce the economic expenditure on expensive arsenal or deterrent measures. As a result, these resources can be allocated more efficiently, avoiding unnecessary expenditures.

Still, the idea of a formal doctrine does not come without challenges. There may also be internal factors like military and political that suggest that ambiguity keeps adversaries uncertain and thus serve Pakistan’s interests. Some may argue that a publicly defined doctrine might limit Pakistan when there is a need to respond to various scenarios, particularly given the sensitive situation of regional threats.

These concerns can be addressed by creating a doctrine that offers clarity on key issues, but remains flexible. For example, the operational planning may be an undeclared part of it, but it would outline the nuclear posture in a way as to avoid misinterpretation by the adversaries. The key is to maintain a sweet balance between flexibility and transparency.

A clear and measured nuclear doctrine is not just a tool for deterrence, it is a strategic asset that aligns Pakistan’s security interests with its economic realities and international aspirations.

To address the complexities of the security environment, Pakistan should consider adopting a formal, transparent, and explicit nuclear doctrine that emphasizes the following:

• Strengthening Pakistan’s dedication to a reliable minimum deterrence. This would guarantee that the nuclear weapons exist solely to ensure national survival and to prevent aggression.
• A “no-first-use” policy may not correspond with Pakistan’s strategic goals, although it might delineate the parameters of Pakistan’s policies without inciting regional conflicts.
• Resolving to prevent an arms race by sustaining a minimum but effective deterrence capability. This would enhance the doctrine’s legitimacy while simultaneously addressing the country’s economic restrictions.
• Regional and global forums that enable states to deliberate on their nuclear postures can diminish ambiguities. This conveys a message of accountability to adversaries, positioning the nuclear program as reliable and eliminating uncertainty for stakeholders.

In an increasingly complex regional security environment, Pakistan’s adoption of a transparent nuclear doctrine will signal its commitment to regional security and responsibility. Moreover, the risks of misperception and escalation can be mitigated.

Ultimately, a clear and measured nuclear doctrine is not just a tool for deterrence, it is a strategic asset that aligns Pakistan’s security interests with its economic realities and international aspirations. Keeping everything in view, the pursuit of a transparent doctrine will be considered a proactive step toward a more stable, predictable, and cooperative South Asian security environment.