Nuclear Weapons on the Table | Security Lense | Article | 24-Sep-2024
Pakistan, a nation established on the principles of self-determination and sovereignty, has often found itself entangled in a complex web of security dilemma, economic challenges and regional power dynamics. Since its inception, Pakistan has aimed to solidify its standing in South Asia, a region where deep seated rivalries and tensions, especially with India have shaped the geopolitical landscape. In the pursuit of national security and strategic stability, Pakistan has developed a vigorous defense strategy, heavily investing in nuclear weapons and conventional weapons.
However, this approach raises different critical questions: Is Pakistan’s arms buildup driven by security concerns or prestige, or an unending arms race? Are Nukes not enough for security? Why does Pakistan continue to pour resources into conventional weapons? This article examines the motivations behind Pakistan’s costly arms agenda, including its focus on nuclear and conventional weapons, and explores how these investments affect other social sectors, as well as their positive and negative implications for citizens.
The Genesis of Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Agenda
To understand Pakistan’s current defense policy, it’s important to understand the historical context. Pakistan’s security concerns are deeply rooted in its contentious relationship with India and Afghanistan. Pakistan and India’s relationship are marked by wars, border skirmishes, and ongoing dispute over Kashmir. The partition between British India in 1947 and the ensuring emergence of Pakistan and India as independent states sowed the seeds of rivalry. The traumatic partition, distinguish by widespread violence and mass migrations left deep scars, creating an atmosphere of mutual distrust.
Pakistan’s pursuit of nuclear weapons can be traced back to the aftermath of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the chronic threat from India. The Soviet presence in Afghanistan heightened Islamabad’s fears of encirclement, while India’s 1974 nuclear test “Smiling Buddha” created a strategic imbalance. Also, the War of 1971 exposed Pakistan’s conventional military weaknesses and provoked its leaders to consider alternative means to ensure national security. Facing dual pressures, Pakistan saw nuclear weapons as the only means to ensure national security and maintain regional balance. This resolve led to Pakistan’s first nuclear tests in 1998, a decision set in motion much earlier.
The Security Dilemma: Nuclear weapons and Beyond
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is often seen as a deterrent against potential aggression from India, which also possesses nuclear weapons. The concept of deterrence is based on the idea that the possession of a nuclear weapon prevents an adversary from launching a nuclear or conventional attack due to fear of massive retaliation. However, despite achieving nuclear capability, Pakistan continued to invest heavily in conventional arms. This raises a fundamental question: Are Nukes not enough for Pakistan’s security?
The answer lies in the limitation of nuclear deterrence. While nuclear weapons can deter large-scale attacks, they are less effective in addressing low-intensity conflicts, such as cross-border terrorism, insurgencies or limited conventional warfare. The Kargil War of 1999, fought between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of their nuclear test demonstrated the limits of nuclear deterrence. Despite the nuclear backdrop, the conventional forces played a significant role in the conflict. Pakistan’s commitment to conventional arms development reflects its need to address a wide range of security concerns, from traditional warfare to asymmetric and hybrid threats, in order to ensure comprehensive national defense and maintain regional stability.
The Prestige Factor: Nuclear Weapons as a Symbol of Power
Beyond the realm of security, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons serve as a symbol of national prestige and power. In the international arena, nuclear-armed states are often perceived as more powerful and influential. Acquiring nuclear weapons can elevate a nation’s status, providing it with a seat at the global high table and voice in international security discussion. For Pakistan, a state that often felt marginalized in global affairs, nuclear capability offers a sense of empowerment and recognition.
Pakistan’s pursuit of nuclear weapons has been driven not only by security concerns but also by the desire of national prestige. As former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto famously declared, WE WILL EAT GRASS EVEN GO HUNGRY, BUT WE WILL GET ONE OF OUR OWN (NUCLEAR BOMB). WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE”. This sentiment encapsulates the determination of Pakistan to achieve nuclear Capability despite the economic and social cost, seeing it as an important step toward ensuring national security.
However, this pursuit of prestige has often come at the expense of other vital national development, such as social and economic advancement, which necessitate long-term commitment to education, healthcare and infrastructure, as political scientist Robert Jervis noted, “Prestige is a form of reputation and, like all reputations, it is an important determinant of behavior.
As Pakistan confronts 21 century challenges, it must choose between militarization and prioritization of its people’s development. The future of Pakistan depends on its ability to balance these competing demands, ensuring that its pursuit of prestige and security does not come at the expense of its citizens’ well-being. As Pakistani physicist and Nobel laureate Abdus Salam once said, “Scientific thought and its creation is the common and shared heritage of mankind.” It is this common heritage, and the promise of a better future, that Pakistan must strive to uphold.
Although prestige generally includes emotions and affective attitudes. The definition leads to game models relevant to questions like: Why is prestige strategically important? How do nations acquire it for themselves and how do they judge it in others? Why do some countries embrace the bomb as a prestige symbol rather than achievements in their social development, and what can be done to uncouple prestige from nuclear weapons?
The Arms Race: A Cycle of Competition
An additional significant force behind Pakistan’s arms agenda is the ongoing arms race in the world or in South Asia. This region has witnessed a continuous cycle of military competition with India and Pakistan engaging in arms buildup to maintain strategic balance. The vast disparity in defense spending between India and Pakistan drives Islamabad to bolster its military prowess, as New Delhi’s investments in advanced technologies, including missile defense systems, aircraft carriers, and modern fighter jets, pose a significant threat to Pakistan’s national security and regional balance.
This cycle of competition creates a security dilemma, where the action of one state to enhance its security leads to contractions by the others, perpetuating an arms race. Pakistan’s fear of falling behind in the regional arms race leads to a disproportionate allocation of resources towards defense, compromising investments in critical areas like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, which are crucial for the country’s long-term progress and prosperity. In the Fiscal year 2024-25 Pakistan allocated 7.37$ billion to defense, marking a 16% increase from the previous year’s allocation of 6.33$ billion. This increase highlights the prioritization of defense over social spending.
The Economic Burden: The Cost of Security
Pakistan’s defense spending places a significant burden on its economy. The country allocates a substantial portion of its budget to defense, with estimates suggesting that defense spending accounts for around 3-4% of GDP. This is a considerable amount for a developing country facing economic challenges, including poverty, unemployment, inflation, and a high debt burden. In the past five years, Pakistan’s defense budget has doubled, reflecting the increasing costs of maintaining a large and modern military.
Public pensions for the military in Pakistan make up over 75% of the federal government’s pension expenditures. They have also been rising at over 16% annually since 2014.Expenditure on retired military personnel is more than thrice the amount spent on retired federal government employees. What is worse is that these pensions are unfunded. There is currently no provision by the state to finance future pension liabilities. In other parts of the world, pensions are paid out of a fund that the employee and the employer contribute to during time of employment. The fund is invested across a range of capital market instruments to generate returns. These returns then benefit the employee post retirement.
The Role of Pseudo-Democracy: Civil-Military Relations
In Pakistan, the military wields significant influence over the state, often overshadowing civilian authority. Despite the appearance of democracy, with regular elections and civilian governments, the military holds substantial power, shaping key national policies, including defense and foreign policy. This pseudo-democracy allows the military to maintain its dominance, ensuring that defense budgets are prioritized over social sectors. The military’s control over national security decisions perpetuates a focus on territorial security, often at the expense of social and economic security.
The Opportunity Cost: What Are Pakistanis Paying?
The opportunity cost of Pakistan’s defense spending is a critical issue. Resources allocated to defense are resources that could be used for development projects, social welfare programs, and public services. Every dollar spent on weapons is a dollar not spent on schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. This raises important questions about the priorities of the Pakistani state and the trade-offs between security and development.
For ordinary Pakistani citizens, the impact of defense spending is felt in the form of limited access to quality education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. High defense spending can lead to budgetary constraints, reducing the government’s ability to invest in social sectors. This can perpetuate cycles of poverty, inequality, and underdevelopment, undermining long-term national stability and security.
Rethinking the Arms Agenda
Pakistan’s costly arms pursuit is driven by security concerns, prestige, and regional dynamics. While nuclear weapons deter large-scale threats, they don’t address all security challenges. Conventional arms investments reflect diverse threats and nuclear deterrence limitations. However, defense spending’s economic burden and opportunity costs for development are significant concerns.A nation’s security is measured by its people’s well-being, economic resilience, and social inclusiveness. Rethinking Pakistan’s arms agenda is a strategic necessity and a question of national priorities for a better future.
Connect with Security Lense
Leave a Reply