Pakistan’s Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD) policy regarding its nuclear arsenal brings every Indian target within striking range, and was developed to provide decision-makers a range of options. However, lack of information about the policy has led to much speculation.

Dawn spoke with Desmond Bowen, a consulting member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) that specialises in defence and security; and Mark Fitzpatrick, who is the director for IISS’ non-proliferation and disarmament programme, about the policy.

Q: What does Pakistan’s FSD policy entail?

Mark: This means that any nuclear threat by an adversary, which is India of course, needs to be met. Over the years, Pakistan has identified gaps in its deterrence and has introduced shorter range systems in order to plug the gaps at the lower end of the spectrum.

The newest development is that Pakistan apparently sees itself as vulnerable at the higher end – the longer range end – because India is developing a military base in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Until recently, Pakistan did not have a nuclear deterrent that could reach those islands. We do not think it is necessary because in order to deter India, Pakistan needs to be able to exact unacceptable damage to Indian cities. If Pakistan can attack New Delhi or Mumbai and exert unacceptable damage, it doesn’t need to attack any Indian nuclear base [further away] in the country.

Desmond: The Pakistani acquisition of new deterrent capabilities is not a question of buying them off the shelf; it is a question of fashioning, developing and testing them. From what we understand and from what Pakistani colleagues say, they have these capabilities – they have short range systems and very long-range systems with a warhead capability.

Q: Every now and then, someone raises the point about how unsafe Pakistani nuclear weapons are...

Mark: There has been an effort to cooperate with Pakistan to ensure that its nuclear weapons are well-protected against terrorist attacks. I think Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are as well protected as any other nuclear nation’s; the country has put a great deal of effort into their security and the media attention around the world about the potential of these weapons falling into the wrong hands is because of the many terrorist groups in Pakistan. But those of us who have looked into this carefully realise that Pakistan has taken a lot of steps to secure its weapons.

Q: Do the policies of India and Pakistan differ from those of other nuclear nations?

Mark: The geographical proximity is a major difference. In the case of US and Russia, there is an ocean between them, which allows for more time. The geographical proximity adds to the danger of some of the systems the two sides employ: the short-range tactical nuclear weapons Pakistan introduced a few years ago caused concern around the world because they have to be close to the battlefield and are vulnerable to pre-emption and to the potential loss of command and control. Pakistan has answers to these questions, but it remains a concern.

Desmond: One of the sources of instability is that the nuclear doctrines of the two countries are very different. For Pakistan, the idea is that there should be no scope for any type of incursion into its territory and it is prepared to use small tactical weapons, but small does not mean they are harmless and you break a taboo by using them.

The Indians maintain that any use of nuclear forces against them will result in a massive response. So, you have an asymmetry, which in itself is unstable.

Q: Is a nuclear state less likely to start wars?

Mark: There is a theory in international relations that having nuclear weapons creates a stability-instability paradox. Having these weapons makes both sides cautious about entering into a war and in the case of the cold war between Nato and the Warsaw Pact forces, the mutual destruction that the nuclear weapons implied helped create or maintain a peace between them. This also applies in the subcontinent. That is the stability part of it.

The instability part of it means having nuclear weapons can make militaries more risk-willing. Pakistan is an example and it would not have taken certain steps over the last 20 years if it did not have nuclear weapons, for instance the incursion into Kargil.

Q: Is there a possibility of complete disarmament across the world?

Desmond: It is an objective that has been clearly stated and President Obama re-launched the idea that it was possible to have a world without nuclear weapons. But how you get there with security for all those involved is very difficult. Instances of countries pursuing nuclear weapons programmes do not encourage others to unilaterally disarm, which might leave themselves vulnerable to a rogue state.

Mark: We do not want the world to be one like we had in the early part of the 20th century, when we had two world wars. Any world free of nuclear weapons should not be a world less secure than the world we have today.

I can envision scenarios in which the world rids itself of these very dangerous weapons. I could even see the US and Russia coming to an agreement, but it will be even more difficult for India and Pakistan to reach that sort of agreement.

Q: What is the best way to keep more nuclear weapons from proliferating into the Korean Peninsula?

Mark: The Korean peninsula is one of the world’s most dangerous areas right now. North Korea has nuclear weapons and has continued to advance its ability to hit the United States with nuclear armed ballistic missiles. The US may respond by a limited attack against North Korean facilities, which can escalate into a war that could go nuclear.

There is another way – the US has been employing very strong rhetoric to try to deter North Korea and try to persuade China to restrain its ally. But the rhetoric by from Trump administration may be misconceived by the North Korean regime. There is a very real possibility that Kim Jong-Un may misunderstand and think he is under attack.

Just about every policy tool has been tried over the years. Various negotiations with different parties, various forms of sanctions, nothing has worked. There need to be stronger sanctions coupled with an engagement strategy.

But there are some very bad options, such as introducing nuclear weapons in South Korea, which will be politically divisive and will be a target for pre-emption by North Korea.

The other bad option will be a military attack on North Korea. So, there needs to be careful diplomacy and stern measures of pressure to try to persuade North Korea to stop threatening the US.

Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2017