The Nuclear Paradox: How Arms Soften Tensions Between India and Pakistan

Overview of the Kashmir Conflict

Dr. Lauren Dagan Amos, an expert on Indian foreign policy and security, recently discussed the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, particularly focusing on the contested region of Kashmir. Despite the military escalation, Dr. Amos argued that the existence of nuclear weapons on both sides plays a crucial role in preventing further conflict. For over 70 years, Kashmir has remained a symbol of national identity for both India and Pakistan, complicating diplomatic relations.

Recent Developments

On May 11, 2025, a ceasefire was announced following increased violence in the region. However, Dr. Amos noted that the situation remains complicated due to unresolved agreements, including the Indus Waters Treaty and the Shimla Agreement, marking a significant development after decades of diplomatic protocols. She emphasized the importance of maintaining direct communication between the two nations, suggesting it may alleviate concerns regarding escalation.

Implications for Israel

The discussion also extended to Israel’s relationship with India, highlighting Israel’s historical support for India in regional matters. Dr. Amos pointed out that rumors have circulated about possible Israeli involvement in the ongoing tensions, which could provide ammunition for critics of Israel. Despite these concerns, she dismissed the likelihood of the conflict spilling over into Israel, affirming India’s strategic partnership with the country.

The Role of Nuclear Weapons

Dr. Amos articulated that since 2019, the two countries have refrained from direct warfare, despite occasional spikes in violence. She noted, “Two nuclear-capable nations know how to manage their interactions without escalating to the point of mutual destruction.” Unlike the scenarios often drawn with Iran and other nations, she highlighted that India and Pakistan have never directly threatened each other with annihilation.

Furthermore, discussions surrounding nuclear capabilities should not be rushed to conclusions regarding their intended use. Dr. Amos explained that nuclear deterrence does not necessarily indicate readiness to engage in warfare but often reflects a state’s lack of alternatives. She expressed a degree of reassurance in the discourse surrounding nuclear arms, positing that it demonstrates both nations’ ability to communicate effectively amidst rising tensions.

Conclusion

The intricate dynamics of the India-Pakistan relationship, especially related to nuclear deterrence, reveal a complex balance of power. While the situation remains tense, the presence of nuclear arms serves more as a stabilizing force than a catalyst for conflict. As regional and global players watch closely, the role of diplomatic communication remains essential in maintaining peace