SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pakistan
Watchdog Warns of Growing Global Threat as Nuclear-Armed Israel Attacks Iran
One SIPRI expert said the weapons "come with immense risks of escalation and catastrophic miscalculation—particularly when disinformation is rife—and may end up making a country's population less safe."
Jun 16, 2025
As Israel's assault on Iran generates global alarm, an international watchdog on Monday released an annual report warning that "a dangerous new nuclear arms race is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are severely weakened."
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's SIPRI Yearbook 2025 begins by acknowledging the 80th anniversary of the only times that nuclear weapons have been used in war: the U.S. bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
"In those eight decades, a great deal of death and destruction has been meted out in war but the taboo against using nuclear weapons has survived and grown stronger," the yearbook says. "This is, as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee noted when awarding the 2024 Peace Prize to the movement of Japanese nuclear survivors (hibakusha), Nihon Hidankyo, 'an encouraging fact.' Nonetheless, new risks mean it is worth reviewing today's nuclear challenge."
In addition to the United States, the confirmed nuclear-armed nations are China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The global inventory is an estimated 12,241 warheads, most of which belong to the U.S. and Russia, according to SIPRI. As of January, about 9,614 of the weapons were in military stockpiles for potential use, including 3,912 deployed with missiles and aircraft.
"There needs to be a new, general understanding that nuclear weapons do not buy security and their existence demands balanced behavior by political leaders."
"In 2024, global security showed no overall improvement and some deterioration compared to the previous year. Several armed conflicts—not least in Ethiopia, Gaza, Myanmar, and Sudan—continued to escalate," the report states. "Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine continued, confrontation over Taiwan deepened, tensions on the Korean peninsula sharpened, and global politics were marked by increasing divisiveness and polarization sown by, among other causes of disputation, Israel's devastating offensive in Gaza."
The yearbook flags "new uncertainties" stemming from the November 2024 election of U.S. President Donald Trump, pointing out how "both allies and adversaries of the USA and all those in between found themselves navigating uncharted geopolitical and economic waters" in the wake of the Republican's return to office in January.
"Bilateral nuclear arms control between Russia and the USA entered crisis some years ago and is now almost over," the document details. "The one remaining bilateral U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreement is the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), agreed in 2010 and entering force in 2011, with a 10-year duration, extendable by five years upon mutual agreement."
Within days of U.S. President Joe Biden's 2021 inauguration, he and Russian President Vladimir Putin extended the treaty, now set to expire early next year—and, as the report notes, "there is no sign of negotiations to renew or replace it, and no sign on either side of wanting to do so."
Concerns extend beyond the U.S. and Russia. Although "the world's nuclear weapon inventory has been shrinking for almost 40 years," the yearbook explains, "in the last few years, the number of nuclear weapons in military stockpiles (deployed warheads and those in central storage available for use) has started to increase," specifically in China and India.
Earlier this year, India and Pakistan engaged in armed conflict—which Matt Korda, associate senior researcher with SIPRI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program and associate director for the Nuclear Information Project at Federation of American Scientists, pointed to in a Monday statement.
"The combination of strikes on nuclear-related military infrastructure and third-party disinformation risked turning a conventional conflict into a nuclear crisis," Korda said. "This should act as a stark warning for states seeking to increase their reliance on nuclear weapons."
"It is critical to remember that nuclear weapons do not guarantee security," said Korda. "As the recent flare-up of hostilities in India and Pakistan amply demonstrated, nuclear weapons do not prevent conflict. They also come with immense risks of escalation and catastrophic miscalculation—particularly when disinformation is rife—and may end up making a country’s population less safe, not more."
Highlighting signs of a new nuclear arms race "gearing up," the publication warns that "compared to the last one, the risks are likely to be more diverse and more serious. Among the key points of competition will be technological capacities in cyberspace, outer space, and ocean space. Thus, the arms race may be more qualitative rather than quantitative, and the idea of who is ahead in the race will be even more elusive and intangible than it was last time round. In this context, the old largely numerical formulas of arms control will no longer suffice."
The report asserts that "there needs to be a new, general understanding that nuclear weapons do not buy security and their existence demands balanced behavior by political leaders. There also needs to be more training for diplomats in matters of nuclear arms control. This can make possible initial small steps towards reducing risk: hotlines, transparency, even informal understandings and formal agreements, such as no first use of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon free zones."
"These will form guardrails against disaster," SIPRI stressed. "Together with the voices of an informed public, they could also be part of building the pressure for the three great powers to take the next steps in reducing their nuclear arsenals."
The publication was released after the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) reported last week that "in 2024, the nine nuclear-armed states spent more than $100 billion or $190,151 per minute—on their nuclear arsenals—an increase of 11% from the previous year."
SIPRI's report also comes as Israel faced global criticism for targeting Iranian nuclear power facilities and scientists.
Trump—who sabotaged the Iran nuclear deal during his first term—suggested Sunday that American forces "could get involved" to support Israel in the conflict, which has killed civilians in both countries. U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) on Monday introduced a war powers resolution intended to prevent the president from attacking Iran without congressional debate and authorization.
Meanwhile, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Monday that the nation's legislative body is now drafting a bill to withdraw from the landmark 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Keep ReadingShow Less
India, Pakistan Accuse Each Other of Violating New Cease-Fire
Leaders around the world have urged de-escalation between the nuclear-armed nations since the massacre in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
May 10, 2025
India and Pakistan accused each other of violating a cease-fire that had been announced Saturday by officials from both countries and U.S. President Donald Trump amid global fears of escalating tit-for-tat strikes between the nuclear-armed neighbors in the wake of last month's Pahalgam massacre in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
"Within hours, blasts were reported from the main cities of Indian Kashmir, the center of four days of fighting," Reuters reported, citing authorities, residents, and witnesses. "Blasts were heard in Srinagar and Jammu, and projectiles and flashes were seen in the night sky over Jammu, similar to the events of the previous evening."
Drop Site News noted that Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri accused Pakistan of "repeated violations" of the deal.
However, Pakistan's information minister, Ataullah Tarar, told Geo News, that "violation of cease-fire agreement from our side is out of question."
The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs later released a statement saying that it "remains committed to faithful implementation" of the deal, accusing India of committing violations, and stressing that troops on the ground "should also exercise restraint."
Earlier Saturday, the Indian minister, Misri, had confirmed the cease-fire agreement, saying that "it was agreed that both sides would stop all firing and military action on land and in the air and sea."
Indian officials have not publicly credited the United States for the deal, while Pakistani leaders have. Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar "specifically acknowledged the role played by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the process," according to Geo News.
Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister, said on social media that "we thank President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region."
The U.S. president had said on his Truth Social platform: "After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASE-FIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Leaders around the world, including United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, have urged diplomacy and restraint since militants attacked Hindu tourists and killed 26 people in Kashmir last month.
After Saturday's cease-fire announcement, Farhan Haq, deputy spokesperson for the U.N. chief, told PTI that "we are monitoring but we welcome all efforts to de-escalate the conflict."
Sources from India and Pakistan's governments told Reuters that the Indus Waters Treaty was not part of the deal. India withdrew from the decades-old water-sharing pact after the April attack in Kashmir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hope Is Not a Strategy: The Urgent Need for India and Pakistan to De-escalate
May 10, 2025
The heinous terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22 and the retaliatory May 6 missile and drone attacks by India, including on targets in Pakistani territory, have created the conditions for a dangerous escalation of hostilities between these two nuclear-armed states.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, as well as leaders from other key countries, including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have called for urgent, direct dialogue leading to immediate de-escalation between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Nevertheless, the danger of a wider war has not yet been abated.
So far, President Trump has apparently only offered vague words of hope that a more serious crisis can be averted. "They've gone tit-for-tat, so hopefully they can stop now," Trump said at the White House on May 7, adding he knew both sides "very well" and wanted "to see them work it out." He added: "And if I can do anything to help, I will be there."
But given what is at stake, hope is not enough.
India has accused Pakistan of direct involvement in the terrorist attack through Islamist militant organizations it says have the backing of Islamabad. Pakistan has denied involvement and condemned the terror attack. But, following India’s missile volley, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said India must “suffer the consequences” for the attack and authorized “corresponding action,” which could trigger a chain reaction of strikes and counterstrikes against important military and political targets on each side.
With approximately 170 nuclear warheads each, India and Pakistan have enough nuclear firepower to obliterate the other; Pakistan retains the option to use nuclear weapons first against non-nuclear military threats. In recent days, Pakistan has continued to issue inflammatory statements hinting at potential nuclear use.
Following India's April 24 announcement regarding the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan declared that it would react with "full force across the complete spectrum of national power," which is a not-so-veiled reference to the possible use of nuclear weapons.
Speaking to Pakistani TV channel Geo News Wednesday, Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said: "If they [India] impose an all-out war on the region and if such dangers arise in which there is a stand-off, then at any time a nuclear war can break out."
Any use of nuclear weapons in a conflict involving nuclear-armed states will likely lead to a wider nuclear war. Such a catastrophe in South Asia, one of the most populous areas of the world, would produce a catastrophe with regional and global effects beyond imagination.
A 2019 study published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimates tens of millions of people would be killed, "many major cities largely destroyed and uninhabitable, millions of injured people needing care, and power, transportation, and financial infrastructure in ruins," and the soot that would be ejected into the atmosphere by an India-Pakistan nuclear war would adversely affect the global climate.
The unfolding crisis highlights the reality that the possession and buildup of nuclear arsenals, the perpetuation of nuclear deterrence strategies, and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any state -- whether considered a friend or foe -- is an existential danger to international peace and security.
Senior U.S. leaders, including some presidents, have played an important and sometimes direct role in defusing earlier crises that could have led to nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly “emphasized the need for immediate de-escalation” in separate calls with Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif and India’s external affairs minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. These efforts are encouraging but not likely sufficient to avoid a spiraling, out-of-control crisis, which continues to worsen.
The most senior officials in the Trump administration, as well as Chinese leaders who have greater influence with Pakistan, will need to more actively and directly press both sides to refrain from issuing further threats or engaging in further military strikes against civilian or military targets -- whether that be in the form of ballistic missile attacks, drone attacks, or artillery bombardments across the line of control -- which could lead to disaster.
In addition, a second UN Security Council meeting this month on the topic should be scheduled to foster a serious dialogue on off-ramps, to increase the pressure on India and Pakistan to avoid further hostilities, and to explore options for longer-terms exchanges of views on how to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and the risk of nuclear war in the region.
Since the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests of 1998, India continues to steadily develop more advanced nuclear weapons delivery systems while Pakistan produces more fissile material and new and longer-range missile capabilities in the name of “full spectrum deterrence” against India.
If and when this latest and immediate risk of escalation between India and Pakistan is averted, responsible global leaders need to implement a more comprehensive, balanced, and pro-active strategy to reduce nuclear risks in South Asia and bring India and Pakistan into the global nuclear disarmament enterprise.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular