How many times have we heard Pakistan and India spoken of as two rabid dogs ready to bite each other? Yet, every time tensions rose to the sky, something or someone intervened to prevent the worst. Today, however, the situation is different. Two weeks after a bloody terrorist attack in the disputed region of Kashmir, India he decided to answer launching missiles into Pakistan in what has been called Operation Sindoor.
A military escalation that would make anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of the history of these two countries tremble, both equipped with nuclear weapons and a wounded pride that could push them beyond any limit of rationality.
The Deadly Dance of Nuclear Neighbors
Pakistan and India are like two boxers on the edge of the abyss, who continue to exchange blows without looking at the abyss beneath their feet. This is not the first time that we have witnessed this dangerous ballet, but this time there is something different. The terrorist attack in Kashmir has caused dozens of victims, striking at the heart of Indian national pride.
The missile response of Narendra Modi was not long in coming: rockets that flew over the border to hit targets on Pakistani territory. These are not border skirmishes or diplomatic skirmishes, but a direct attack that completely changes the rules of the game. And this is precisely what worries international observers, who fear how Pakistan might respond to what it considers an invasion of its sovereignty.
If we look at recent history, every crisis between the two countries has been resolved before passing the point of no return. But any scholar of international relations would tell you that the risk this time is decidedly higher. Nuclear deterrence works as long as both sides have something to lose; but when national pride is so deeply wounded, rationality can easily give way to emotion. What can concretely happen now? Let me briefly outline the three possible scenarios.
Scenario 1 between India and Pakistan: Diplomatic de-escalation
The first possible scenario (and the most desirable) is that of a gradual de-escalation. In this case, after the launch of Indian missiles, Pakistan would respond with an official condemnation and an appeal to the international community, avoiding a direct military counteroffensive.
Global powers (particularly the United States, China, and Russia) would intervene immediately, pressuring both sides for a ceasefire. The United Nations would convene an emergency session of the Security Council, which could lead to the deployment of international observers to the Kashmir region.
This scenario is based on the assumption that rationality will prevail over emotion. The problem is that rationality has never been the strong point of Indo-Pakistani relations. Moreover, the government in Islamabad is in a difficult position: showing weakness in the face of Indian aggression could fuel internal protests and strengthen extremist groups. It would be like admitting that it is incapable of defending its own sovereignty.
A recent example of international mediation was seen in 2019, when after an Indian air strike in Balakot, Pakistan captured an Indian pilot but quickly released him as a “peace gesture.” Diplomatic intervention by the United States and the United Arab Emirates helped avoid a major escalation. But the current context is much more explosive.
Chance of scenario 1 (Diplomatic de-escalation): 60%
Recent history shows that despite tensions, India and Pakistan have always avoided an all-out conflict. International pressure and the economic interests of both countries make this scenario the most likely.
Scenario 2: Limited conventional warfare
The second scenario involves a Pakistani military response, but limited to conventional weapons. Islamabad could launch targeted strikes against Indian military installations, shoot down warplanes or strike strategic infrastructure along the border.
This would lead to an open war, but still contained within certain limits. Both sides could continue to exchange blows for a few days or weeks, before international pressure or resource depletion leads to a ceasefire.
The danger here is that even a conventional war could easily escalate. A miscalculation, an attack that causes more civilian casualties than expected, or even just a misperception of the adversary's intentions could trigger an uncontrollable spiral. Like a game of dominoes, once the first piece falls it is difficult to stop the chain reaction.
Think about what happened in 1999 during the Kargil War, when Pakistani forces crossed the Line of Control in Kashmir. What was supposed to be a limited operation turned into a conflict that nearly got out of hand, with thousands killed and wounded. Only US intervention prevented a greater catastrophe.
Ability to Scenario 2 (Limited Conventional Warfare): 35%
Pakistan may feel compelled to respond militarily due to national pride and internal pressures, but trying to keep the conflict below the nuclear threshold. India's conventional military superiority makes this scenario risky but possible.
Scenario 3: Nuclear Apocalypse
And here we come to the third scenario, the one that no one wants to imagine but that we cannot ignore. If Pakistan were to perceive the Indian attack as an existential threat to its survival, it could consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Pakistan developed short-range missiles with nuclear warheads (it should have about 150) precisely to compensate for India's conventional superiority. Its military doctrine does not exclude the first use of nuclear weapons in case of a serious threat to national security.
If Pakistan were to launch even one nuclear warhead, India’s response would be devastating. India has a “no first use” policy, but has made it clear that any nuclear attack on its territory would provoke massive retaliation. This would lead to an exchange of nuclear fire that could cause millions of immediate casualties and catastrophic global consequences.
Uno 2019 study estimated that even a limited nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan could cause between 50 million and 125 million direct deaths. Dust from the explosions would cause a “nuclear winter” that could reduce global agricultural production by 20-40 percent for years, leading to global famines. We talked about it here.
Ability to Scenario 3 (Nuclear Apocalypse): 5%
Despite the threats, both nations understand the catastrophic consequences. The probability is low but not negligible, especially if miscalculations or uncontrolled escalations were to occur in an already tense environment.
India and Pakistan, between deterrence and catastrophe
Of course, as always, no one knows exactly how this crisis will evolve. Nuclear deterrence has worked so far because both sides understand the apocalyptic consequences of a nuclear conflict. But deterrence is not an absolute guarantee, especially when mixed with wounded nationalism and domestic political considerations.
What really scares me is how we have become accustomed to the idea of two nuclear powers regularly threatening each other. As if it were normal to live with the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. As if we could continue dancing on the edge of the precipice indefinitely without ever falling.
Sooner or later the law of large numbers may kick in. And if this is the moment that the fragile nuclear deterrent fails, none of us will be able to say we were caught by surprise. The warnings were there. We just chose to ignore them, thinking that this time too, everything will be fine.
Let's really hope we're right, because the alternative is simply unthinkable.
