Taking the nuclear threat from Pakistan, a nuclear exchange between the two countries, no matter who starts it first, would leave neither country a victor but both vanquished in the killing fields of radio active debris which does not recognise international borders. With no information available on the accuracy of the missiles of either country it can only be presumed that both are planning on deterrence by city bursting capability which requires no great accuracy of the missiles. A nuclear policy based on such threat perception would entail enormous cost with the system of triads particularly nuclear armed submarines from survivability angleacquisition of sufficient number of warheads, and missiles with MIRV capabilities to establish the deterrence of a second strike capability. With the weapons you have and the weapons we have, can we really afford such a miscalculation? Assessing these and coming to a conclusion on what minimum capability we need is what minimum deterrence is all about as far as threat from Pakistan goes. Rather than simply building more sewage plants, the scheme aims to reactivate the riverbank, including by building bike paths, low-cost housing, schools and parks.
In the final analysis India has to accept or atleast plan for the possibility of a limited nuclear attack, having gone nuclear and having an irrational nuclear neighbour.
Ironically, for all that official attention, basic governance structures are still inadequate. However, Pakistan has more plutonium-production reactors than India and the capability to produce up to 20 nuclear warheads a year. The Kargil adventure was started by Pakistan under the misplaced confidence that India would not enlarge the war for fear of escalating it to the nuclear level. Share Bazar. Under the disarmament proposed in the the new study, the total number of warheads globally would drop to or fewer.