As the world holds its breath following the announcement of a fragile ceasefire between the nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, Marija Carter and Venessa Hanson analyse the illusion of nuclear deterrence and the ever-pressing need for global denuclearisation

The Kashmir conflict, often framed as a regional dispute, is in fact a permanent fault-line in the global security architecture following the 1947 partition of British India. The 1949 ceasefire brokered by the UN, ending the first Indo-Pakistani war, established the Line of Control — a de facto border which remains a flashpoint for military confrontation.

Wars in 1947–48, 1965, and 1999, alongside a decades-long insurgency, have made the region one of the most militarised zones on Earth. India accuses Pakistan of supporting militant groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed — allegations Islamabad denies. Under international law, notably Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force across borders is prohibited except in self-defence or with UN Security Council authorisation. Both states have repeatedly invoked self-defence to justify cross-border military actions.

In 2019, India revoked Article 370 of its constitution, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special autonomy. The move was met with widespread criticism. UN human rights experts, who raised concerns about arbitrary detention, restrictions on freedom of movement, and potential violations of international human rights law, particularly the ICCPR.

The latest crisis hit on 22 April 2025, when a militant attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, killed 26 people including 25 Indian tourists. India attributed the attack to The Resistance Front (TRF) — alleging Pakistani support, which Pakistan rejected. In response, India launched ‘Operation Sindoor,’ conducting missile strikes on nine sites in Pakistan, including Bahawalpur, Muridke, and Muzaffarabad, citing them as terrorist infrastructure. Pakistan reported 31 civilian deaths.

Subsequently, Pakistan targeted Jammu Airport in Indian-administered Kashmir. Both nations have engaged in artillery exchanges along the LoC, resulting in additional civilian casualties. Civilians, as always, bear the true cost of warfare.

Under Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, parties to a conflict must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. Articles 51(4) and (5) prohibit indiscriminate attacks.

The international community, including the UK, US, China, and Turkey, has called for restraint and diplomatic resolution. The UN Security Council has reiterated the broader obligation under Article 33 of the UN Charter to resolve disputes by peaceful means.

On 10 May 2025, India and Pakistan agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire following US-mediated talks. The ceasefire was confirmed by both nations’ officials, with instructions given to halt all military actions on land, air, and sea.

However, hours after the announcement, explosions were reported in Srinagar and Jammu, raising concerns about the fragility of the truce. Both sides accused each other of violations, underscoring the deep-seated mistrust and the volatile nature of the situation.

With both sides armed with nuclear weapons and nationalist rhetoric running high, the danger is not only regional.

Far from preserving stability, nuclear weapons introduce the risk of catastrophic escalation to any conflict. The recent escalation between India and Pakistan highlights the risk involved in the reliance on weapons of mass destruction to maintain peace. Both nations have nuclear arsenals, hence any escalation raises the possibility of a nuclear conflict whether through deliberate or accidental use. A nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan would cause millions of immediate deaths in the region and have severe global consequences.

The millions of instant deaths in South Asia that would result from a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan would overwhelm medical systems, destroy infrastructure, and cause flames and radiation to sweep over heavily-inhabited cities. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) released a report in 2022 showing what would happen to healthcare systems in the case of a nuclear assault on big cities in nuclear-armed nations including Islamabad and New Delhi.

The study looked at how many hospital beds, doctors, nurses, and where information is available, as well as ICU beds and burn treatment centres, would be left to treat hundreds of thousands to over one million injured persons.

The study estimates that in the event of a nuclear attack on New Delhi, about one in every 11 people in New Delhi would be injured or killed (based on New Delhi’s population of 30.3 million in 2020). Each doctor would be expected to treat about 91 individuals at once, many suffering from catastrophic injuries the healthcare system would be overrun.

Similarly in Islamabad, the consequences would be disastrous; almost one in three persons would be killed or injured and every doctor would be in charge of roughly 366 patients concurrently, many in severe condition without a working healthcare infrastructure.

So the findings are unambiguous: India and Pakistan may get ready to unleash nuclear weapons, but their healthcare systems are not and cannot be ready for the humanitarian catastrophe that would follow from one nuclear weapon.

But the humanitarian catastrophe would not stop at national borders. A nuclear confrontation between these two countries would be catastrophic for the region and the entire world.

As the 2022 Nature Food study by Xia, Robock et al shows, even a ‘limited’ nuclear war between the two countries would disrupt the climate and have severe environmental impacts.

About 100 weapons detonated (15 kilotons each) might cause soot to be injected into the atmosphere, block sunlight, and trigger a ‘nuclear winter’ greatly upsetting world temperatures and rainfall. Food supply chains would fall apart and agricultural outputs would collapse leading to famine that could kill more than two billion people. No country would be spared. No government could protect its people from the consequences.

It’s not enough to hope nuclear war never happens, the international community must act to ensure it never can and international legal instruments like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) offer a path.

The TPNW is the only treaty that provides a legally binding framework to ban nuclear weapons and lay the groundwork for their total elimination. Before the treaty’s adoption, nuclear weapons were the only weapons of mass destruction not subject to a comprehensive ban, despite their catastrophic, widespread and persistent humanitarian and environmental consequences.

The latest ceasefire may have paused the missiles, but it has not defused the bomb at the heart of the crisis. Nuclear weapons do not deter war — they sharpen every conflict into a potential apocalypse. The Kashmir crisis is not just a regional flashpoint; it’s a symptom of a global order that still treats weapons of mass destruction as legitimate tools of power. It is the result of an ideology deeming civilian lives expandable, while gambling with the survival chances of humanity as a whole.

This is what ‘peace’ looks like under the theory of deterrence. The world cannot afford to keep pretending it is working. Complete nuclear disarmament is not idealism — it is the only way.