Tensions between India and Pakistan have spiked in recent weeks, raising the grim question of whether their conflict could escalate into a nuclear war. On May 7, 2025, India launched air and missile strikes against targets in Pakistan, retaliating for a deadly militant attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir a month prior. These strikes – the most intense since a similar crisis in 2019 – shattered a ceasefire in place since 2021. With both nations armed with nuclear weapons, global alarm is growing. How likely is a nuclear showdown, and what would it mean for the people of South Asia and beyond?

Nuclear-Armed Neighbors and a History of Close Calls

India and Pakistan have been rivals since their partition in 1947, fighting multiple wars over regions like Kashmir. Both tested nuclear weapons in the late 1990s (India in 1998, Pakistan shortly after), and since then any major clash has carried an added nuclear risk. History shows several perilous standoffs. During the 1999 Kargil War – just a year after the nuclear tests – Pakistan’s military faced heavy losses and reportedly began preparing its nuclear weapons for possible use. U.S. intelligence warned President Bill Clinton that Pakistan was positioning nukes as its army risked defeat, prompting urgent American intervention to defuse the crisis. A few years later, in 2001–2002, a terrorist attack on India’s parliament led India and Pakistan to mobilize a million troops. At the height of that standoff, Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf issued a stark warning that if pressure on Pakistan became too great, “as a last resort, the atom bomb is also possible”. Fortunately, intense diplomacy prevented full-scale war in that episode.

More recently, in February 2019, a suicide bombing in Pulwama (Indian Kashmir) killed 40 Indian soldiers, leading India to carry out airstrikes inside Pakistan. Pakistan retaliated with its air force, and the two sides came dangerously close to war. During that crisis, Pakistani officials, including Prime Minister Imran Khan, cautioned that continued fighting could slip out of control. He warned at the United Nations that if a conventional war starts and a smaller country like Pakistan is faced with defeat, “we will fight and when a nuclear-armed country fights to the end it will have consequences far beyond the borders”. Such statements underscore that both nations consider nuclear weapons a last resort – but one they might use if their national survival is at stake.

Nuclear Policies: India’s ‘No First Use’ vs. Pakistan’s First-Use Doctrine

A key factor in gauging nuclear war likelihood is each country’s nuclear doctrine. India maintains a policy of “No First Use” (NFU), pledging not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked with nuclear (or other weapons of mass destruction). This means India says it would only launch nukes in retaliation. Indian leaders see nuclear arms primarily as a deterrent, not for battlefield use. However, there have been hints of ambiguity in recent years. In 2019, India’s defense minister suggested the NFU commitment “depends on circumstances,” implying it might not hold forever. Still, as of 2025, NFU remains India’s official stance. India also vows that any nuclear retaliation would be massive, aiming to inflict “unacceptable damage” on an aggressor – essentially a warning that if Pakistan ever uses a nuke, India would respond with overwhelming force.

Pakistan, by contrast, has never adopted an NFU policy. Islamabad’s doctrine allows for first use of nuclear weapons if Pakistan feels gravely threatened, especially by India’s superior conventional military might. Pakistani strategists openly emphasize a willingness to use “tactical” (short-range, lower-yield) nuclear weapons on the battlefield to stop an invading Indian army. This first-use stance is viewed as a way to offset India’s larger army and prevent a total military defeat. In line with this, Pakistan has developed small nuclear warheads deliverable by short-range missiles or even artillery. Its leaders have stated that nuclear arms would be used only as a last resort – but they deliberately keep the exact “red lines” (triggers for use) vague, to keep India guessing. This doctrine arguably makes any all-out war perilous: if India’s army advanced deep into Pakistan, Pakistan might escalate to nuclear strikes to save itself.

Despite these aggressive postures, both governments are well aware of the nuclear taboo and the catastrophic consequences of crossing that line. In crises so far, intense international pressure and the fear of mutual destruction have stopped leaders short of using atomic weapons. The current situation in May 2025 is extremely tense, but experts note that cooler heads have typically prevailed at the brink. Analysts observe that neither side wants nuclear war – the weapons are seen as political deterrents. However, as long as conflicts continue (like the recent Kashmir flare-up), the risk of miscalculation or uncontrolled escalation remains. Each country’s military is on high alert, and even a small incident or misunderstanding could spiral into something far more dangerous. The likelihood of deliberate nuclear use is still considered low, but it is not zero.

Current Nuclear Capabilities and Rhetoric

As of 2025, both India and Pakistan have built sizeable nuclear arsenals. Recent estimates suggest each possesses on the order of 160–170 nuclear warheads. They have developed a triad of delivery systems – warheads that can be delivered by aircraft, land-based ballistic missiles, and (for both nations, to a limited extent) submarine-launched missiles. These arsenals have grown over time. In fact, a 2024 report noted India has around 172 warheads and Pakistan about 170, marking the first time India’s stockpile slightly surpassed Pakistan’s. Both countries continue to modernize their nuclear forces with new missiles and capabilities. Importantly, neither country keeps nuclear weapons deployed on hair-trigger alert in peacetime – warheads are generally stored separately from missiles for safety. But during a crisis, weapons can be mated to delivery systems quickly.

In terms of leadership statements, nuclear weapons are often discussed as defensive tools. Indian officials rarely talk about using nukes except to reaffirm the NFU policy (or hint at tweaks to it). Pakistani leaders more frequently invoke their nuclear capability as a warning. For instance, as mentioned, General Musharraf in 2002 and PM Imran Khan in 2019 both explicitly reminded the world that Pakistan could resort to nuclear arms if its existence were in peril. Such rhetoric, while alarming, is typically aimed at deterring India from pushing too far. The current Pakistani government has reiterated that it will not start a conflict – but also that Pakistan “will respond to all threats” and doesn’t rule out any weapon if attacked. On the Indian side, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government projects a tough stance against terrorism and aggression, but also seeks to avoid open war, knowing the nuclear shadow looms. Both sides understand that a nuclear exchange would be an unspeakable disaster, which is why even amid provocations they have stopped short of crossing that threshold.

So, could the current conflict go nuclear?

Most analysts say it’s unlikely if the fighting remains limited. Neither government wants to be the first to use the Bomb. The likely trigger for nuclear use would be a scenario where one side faces imminent military collapse or loss of a major territory. For example, if a full conventional war erupted and Pakistan’s defenses crumbled, it might use a nuclear weapon on the battlefield rather than surrender. India, if struck by a Pakistani nuke (even a small one against its troops), would almost certainly retaliate with nuclear strikes of its own, per its doctrine. This chain could lead to all-out nuclear war. The current skirmishes, while dangerous, have not reached that point. World powers are urgently urging restraint, and back-channel communications between New Delhi and Islamabad are likely active to prevent misunderstandings. In summary, the risk of nuclear war remains low in this 2025 standoff – but it cannot be dismissed. Any new provocation or misstep carries the potential to ignite a catastrophic escalation.

If the Unthinkable Happened: Nuclear Strike Scenarios

Let us imagine the worst-case scenario: both India and Pakistan decide to use nuclear weapons. What might that look like? Military strategists outline two broad scenarios – a limited nuclear exchange (a few weapons used) and a full-scale nuclear war. In either case, civilian populations would be in grave peril. Both countries have populated cities close to the border and deep inland that could be targeted. Below we explore which areas might be hit in each scenario, and the likely consequences.

Limited Nuclear Exchange

In a limited exchange, one side might use a small number of nuclear weapons as a warning or to stave off defeat, and the other side could retaliate in kind. The goal (for at least one party) might be to shock the opponent into backing down, rather than to obliterate each other outright. Even so, any use of nukes would cause massive casualties and could easily escalate. In such a scenario, military bases or smaller cities might be targeted initially, rather than all-out strikes on the biggest metros. Some civilian areas likely at risk in a limited exchange could include:

• In India: Border cities or strategic locations with military significance. For example, a city like Amritsar (near the Pakistan border in Punjab) might be targeted by Pakistan due to its proximity and symbolism. Similarly, Jammu or Srinagar in the contested Kashmir region could be hit if Pakistan aims to weaken India’s hold on Kashmir. Another possibility often discussed is a demonstration strike on a less populated area – e.g. Jodhpur or Bikaner (cities in Rajasthan not far from Pakistan) – intended to avoid the highest casualties while sending a deadly message. India’s military installations such as army bases or airfields in border states might also be targeted, some of which are on the outskirts of cities (putting nearby civilians at risk).
• In Pakistan: India’s retaliation, according to its doctrine, could be “massive” even in response to a single nuke. India might strike a major Pakistani military base or city to punish the attack. A likely target might be Lahore, Pakistan’s second-largest city, which lies very close to the Indian border. Lahore is a cultural capital but also near key Pakistani army positions – a strike here would be devastating and send a strong signal. Alternatively, India could hit Rawalpindi (the headquarters of Pakistan’s military, adjacent to the capital Islamabad) in an attempt to decapitate Pakistan’s military leadership. Another possible target is Bahawalpur in Pakistan’s Punjab – it hosts a large garrison and was explicitly mentioned in one war-game scenario as an early nuclear target. In a “limited” tit-for-tat, Islamabad (the capital) or Karachi (the largest city) might initially be spared to leave room for de-escalation – but smaller cities like Multan or military sites in Gilgit-Baltistan could be on the list.

Even a limited nuclear skirmish would be horrific. Millions of civilians could die instantly. For instance, analysts estimate that even a “small” exchange of a few nuclear bombs could kill around 20 million people within a week. Hospitals would be overwhelmed by burns and radiation sickness, and infrastructure would be shattered. There’s also no guarantee a limited strike stays limited – once the nuclear threshold is crossed, emotions and pressures run high for all-out retaliation.

Full-Scale Nuclear War

A full-scale exchange between India and Pakistan would involve dozens – perhaps hundreds – of nuclear detonations, aiming to cripple the other side completely. This is the nightmare scenario everyone fears. In a all-out nuclear war, virtually every major city and strategic target in both countries would be hit. Each nation would try to annihilate the other’s political centers, military bases, and economic hubs. Likely targets in such a scenario include:

• In India: The capital New Delhi would almost certainly be targeted by Pakistan early on, as it is the seat of government and a symbol of India. Mumbai (Bombay), India’s most populous city and financial center, would also be high on the target list. Other mega-cities at risk would include Kolkata (Calcutta) in the east, Chennai (Madras) in the south, Bengaluru (Bangalore) in the south, and Hyderabad – all centers of population and industry. Key northern cities such as Jaipur, Ahmedabad, and Lucknow could be targeted as well. Pakistan would likely aim at India’s military command and control nodes too: for example, strikes on Indian military bases in Pune or Visakhapatnam, or nuclear facilities like those at Mumbai (Bhabha Atomic Research Center) and Kalpakkam. Essentially, any city with millions of people or any region important to India’s governance and defense could be hit. The result would be apocalyptic: many of these cities would be largely destroyed and engulfed in firestorms. Estimates suggest that a full exchange could kill on the order of 50 to 125 million people outright in South Asia – an almost incomprehensible toll.
• In Pakistan: India’s nuclear strikes would likewise focus on wiping out Pakistan’s leadership, military, and population centers. Islamabad, the capital, along with the adjoining city of Rawalpindi (military HQ), would be primary targets. Pakistan’s largest city Karachi, a vital port and economic center on the Arabian Sea, would be targeted by multiple warheads given its size. Lahore, being close and large, would face devastation. Other major Pakistani cities likely to be hit include Faisalabad (a major industrial city), Peshawar (strategic city near the Afghan border), Multan, Hyderabad (in Sindh), and Quetta (capital of Balochistan). Any location housing Pakistani air bases or missile sites – many of which are near or within cities – would be struck, meaning even medium-size cities and towns with military facilities (like Sargodha or Jacobabad) could be nuked. In total, Pakistan’s urban areas would be effectively obliterated in a full-scale Indian retaliation. Tens of millions of Pakistanis would perish in minutes, and the country would cease to function as a modern state.

In this doomsday scenario, both countries’ infrastructures would be completely wrecked. Cities would burn, releasing massive smoke clouds. One scientific study projected that a war using much of India and Pakistan’s arsenals (in the range of 250 total warheads) would create firestorms so large that 50-125 million people might die immediately, and many major cities would be left uninhabitable. The social and economic fabric of both nations would be destroyed. There would be no winners – only devastation.

Fallout and Indirect Consequences

The horror of an India-Pakistan nuclear war would not stop at the blast zones. Nuclear explosions would produce intense radioactive fallout – particles that can drift with the wind and expose people far from the target to radiation. In a limited exchange, fallout might be somewhat localized, but in a full-scale war with many airbursts and surface bursts, radioactive dust and soot would spread across South Asia. Neighboring regions would suffer: for example, a strike on Lahore (Pakistan) could send fallout into Indian Punjab (e.g. Amritsar’s vicinity), and vice versa a blast on Amritsar or New Delhi could contaminate parts of Pakistani Punjab or Sindh. Areas of Kashmir could see radiation spreading along the valleys. Depending on weather patterns, Afghanistan might receive fallout from strikes in western Pakistan; Nepal or Bhutan might be affected by blasts in northern India. Even parts of China bordering the Himalayas could see increased radiation if warheads detonated in northern India or Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan region.

Beyond radiation, the environmental effects would be global. The fires from burning cities would loft millions of tons of black soot into the upper atmosphere. Scientists warn this could cause a form of “nuclear winter” – cooling and darkening of the climate worldwide. Even a “regional” nuclear war between India and Pakistan could inject about 5 million tons of soot and drop average global temperatures by ~1.5-2°C for several years. This, in turn, could trigger crop failures far from South Asia. Research suggests a limited India-Pakistan nuclear war (using ~100 bombs) might disrupt weather and shorten growing seasons enough to cause massive food shortages around the world. Countries in Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia could see famine as imports of grain decline. In South Asia itself, survivors would face not only radioactive cities but also failed monsoons and devastated agriculture.

Closer to the conflict zone, the immediate indirect effects include fires and refugee flows. Millions of people would flee the targeted cities, potentially into neighboring countries like Iran, China, or towards the Indian Ocean coast, creating a humanitarian crisis. Medical and emergency services in the region would be overwhelmed by burn victims and radiation sickness patients. Moreover, any use of nuclear weapons would have long-term health impacts: elevated cancer rates, genetic damage, and contaminated water and soil lasting for decades.

In summary, the fallout of an India-Pakistan nuclear war – literal and figurative – would extend far beyond the two nations. South Asia’s skies and lands would be poisoned, and even places thousands of miles away could suffer darker skies, colder temperatures, and food crises. The interconnected nature of our world means everyone would pay a price for such a war.

A Neutral but Urgent Conclusion

As of May 2025, the prospect of India and Pakistan actually resorting to nuclear arms remains mercifully remote – both sides know the stakes and have pulled back from the brink before. The current conflict, while serious, is still being fought with conventional weapons and diplomatic jostling. History and stated policies suggest that unless one nation’s survival is on the line, nuclear weapons will stay in their silos. Nonetheless, the frightening scenarios outlined above are not just fiction; scholars and defense experts have war-gamed them in detail to understand the potential outcomes. The sheer scale of destruction that would result is perhaps the biggest deterrent of all.

For the general public, it’s important to understand that nuclear war is not a normal extension of conflict – it is a civilization-ending catastrophe. The leadership in New Delhi and Islamabad, regardless of their rivalry, ultimately have strong incentives to avoid crossing that final red line. International diplomacy is crucial in calming the situation, and luckily, past crises have seen cooler heads prevail. The hope is that 2025 will be no different: that amid the heated rhetoric and tragic violence in Kashmir, sanity will win out and the nuclear nightmare will be avoided. The world watches with cautious optimism that India and Pakistan will step back from the abyss, as they have in the past, knowing that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

Sources:

• Washington Post – “Are India and Pakistan at risk of war? Here’s what to know.” (May 7, 2025)
• NDTV – “Pakistan Was Preparing to Deploy Nukes During Kargil War”: Ex-White House Official
• The Guardian – “Musharraf ready to use nuclear arms” (Apr 2002); Imran Khan at UN warns of nuclear war (Sep 2019)
• Center for Arms Control – India and Pakistan Nuclear Weapon Status
• SIPRI 2024 Report (via Dawn News) – Nuclear arsenals (~170 warheads each) and doctrines
• Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – Robock et al. (2019) study on an India-Pakistan nuclear war (casualty and climate impact estimates)
• Columbia Climate School – Jägermeyr et al. (2020) on global famine from limited nuclear war