In Apil 22, unknown terrorists attacked tourists in the Baisala Valley near Pahargam, India, killing 25 of them. The attackers reported the victims based on religion before executing the Hindus. Like previous terrifying attacks, including the 2001 attack on India’s parliament, the 2008 attack on Mumbai, the 2016 URI attack, and the 2019 Pulwamabarakot crisis, the latest attacks have inflamed India-Pakistan relations and led to a cry of war. For the days following the attack, there was an armed skirmish at the border amid calls from the international community for detention.
The competition between India and Pakistan is one of the most dangerous conflicts in the world. Since the simultaneous emergency from British colonial rule in 1947, the two countries have been furious at multiple wars and sustained low-level skirmishes. What uniquely puts conflict at risk is the fact that both are nuclear-armed states. Due to its vast population, dense cities and history of miscalculation, India between India and Pakistan has the potential for a catastrophic nuclear war scholarship, with devastating regional and global consequences.
background
Since the Partition, India and Pakistan have won three major wars – in 1947, 1965, and 1971, they engaged in limited conflicts during the 1999 Kargil War. Most of these conflicts continue to create military tensions, centering around Kashmir’s conflict zones. The Kashmir region is a majority Muslim, but during the division of the UK’s departure, some Hindu dominated India came. Although Kashmir was initially recognized with some degree of autonomy, India is increasingly suppressing responsibility for Pakistan’s uprising and rebellion attacks and regional restraint. The Muslim population feels economically marginalised and harmed by civil rights violations, and this fuel continues. Terrorist attacks and sectarian violence in Kashmir can quickly bring both countries to the brink of war. Each such episode highlights the frenzy of peace and volatility of relations.
Nuclear threat
Both India and Pakistan maintain their growing nuclear weapons, each estimated to have a range of 170-175 nuclear warheads as of 2024. Realizing that India is not using policies that it does not use first, it pledged to reserve the right to respond on a massive scale in the event of nuclear weapons attacks rather than launching a nuclear strike. In contrast, Pakistan refuses to adapt its initial use and retains the option of using nuclear weapons to counter long-term traditional invasions. Furthermore, the development of Pakistan’s battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
The main danger is that the conflict may not be taking scalp to nuclear war. Due to the short missile flight times between India and Pakistan, it is only 5-10 minutes, so leaders have little time to verify the attack and make reasonable decisions. Misunderstandings or judicial interpretations of military movements, particularly during the crisis or following terrorist provocation, can lead to rushing retaliation. Additionally, domestic political pressures fulfill nationalism and reward demands, and are politically costly for leaders, allowing them to leave towards a risky choice of crisis.
There are several plausible scenarios where nuclear weapons could take action. A traditional war caused by uncontrollable terrorist attacks or cross-border artillery bombardment. Pakistan may use nuclear tactical weapons early to blunt India’s traditional thrust and encourage India’s nuclear retaliation. Or, my interpreter’s military movements and military movements convinced one side that a nuclear chore strike was imminent, prompting a catastrophic empotive strike. In either case, the nuclear thresholds cross 11 times, making them quick and devastating.
The small one is ugly
Pakistan’s reliance on small tactical nuclear weapons is particularly concerning as a mountain climbing risk. Nuclear tactical weapons are considered by the Pakistani army as potential battlefield equalizers, as Indian troops are about three times larger than Pakistani forces. The NASR missile was developed by Pakistan, with a range of less than 100 kilometres and low-yield nuclear warheads, and countered a massive Indian armored attack. When Pakistan uses tactical nuclear weapons to break the nuclear weapons taboo, India can respond to nuclear weapons, resulting in escalation strikes and counter strikes, culminating in full-scale regional nuclear war.
Pakistan’s short-range NASR nuclear missile
Fatal thing
The nuclear war between India and Pakistan will destroy both countries, kill millions instantly, and destroy major cities such as Delhi, Islamabad, Lahore and Mumbai. Radical fallout does not respect borders. Neighborhood countries such as China, Nepal, Afghanistan and Iran will also suffer. Beyond immediate death, scientists predict that even “limited” nuclear-limited wars have introduced enormous attire that inhale the atmosphere, trigger winter triggers, and global climate exfoliation that leads to crops and massive hunger. This is a risk that a sane government should not be willing to take.
To hurt catastrophe
Listen to these dangers, there was an effort to avoid escalation. India and Pakistan have established hotlines between military and diplomatic leadership and are immersed in informal diplomacy. Yeasures exist that builds confidence that they agree that no one another’s nuclear facilities exist. International actors like the US, China and Russia have also been pressured both sides to intervene during past crises and exercise restraint. However, these mechanisms are more fragile and distant offensive, depending on the leader’s personal judgment than robust institutional safeguards.
Serious steps are essential to minimizing the risk of nuclear upheavals. It is important to strengthen crisis communication channels and make them faster and more reliable. Both sides should work to improve the safety and security of nuclear weapons and command and control structures to prevent fraudulent use. Even the modest ones, summing up weapon control dialogues can help rebuild trust. The international community must also extend diplomatic pressure to support dialogue and regional cooperation initiatives, aiming to curb tensions in Kashmir and beyond.
Conclusion
The tensions between India and Pakistan caused by the terrorist attacks on April 22 are being built towards a potentially nuclear military conflict. This possibility is not a theoretical concern. That is an emergency and current danger. Even small, woven exchanges have enormous imaginations, not just for South Asia but for the whole world. If a nuclear war between India and Pakistan breaks out and the outcome of WORSST is not the result, the world may shock its way to ban nuclear weapons and end the dangers of a global nuclear catastrophe forever. Otherwise, we could each face more “small” nuclear war than most of us have seen before, with the potential to bring about last winter.
