Technological advances have brought the world to the brink of uncertainty where warfare is not only fought on economic scale but also on proxy level. Low intensity conflicts and terrorism are currently two of the biggest security challenges the international community faces. However, when we talk about unconventional warfare, the development of nuclear weapons since the onset of the Cold War is one of the most important aspects along with the issue of terrorism. The Manhattan Project in the 1940s paved way for a never-ending global nuclear arms race that devoured Europe and Asia over the past seven decades. In South Asia, it was the then Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi’s government that initiated the arms race by carrying out an underground nuclear test called the Smiling Buddha in response to China’s acquisition of nukes in 1964. The Sino-Indian animosity was the new phenomenon to occur after the Sino-Indian War of 1962 given how the then Indian prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Chinese premier, Zhou Enlai, were considered close friends following the formulation of Panchsheel Agreement, the Five Points of Peaceful Coexistence, in 1954. This was agreed upon during the inception of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) at the Bandung Conference in 1955, in which both countries vowed to work together. Consequently, Pakistan was forced to pursue development of nuclear weapons as it also wished to somewhat balance the power paradigm in the Indian subcontinent. In addition, Pakistan was still reeling from the separation of the East Pakistan that broke away following Indira Gandhi and Indian Army Chief General Sam Manekshaw’s intervention in Dhaka through the Mukti Bahini. This situation further encouraged the then Pakistani prime minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his able team of scientists, such as Munir Ahmad Khan and Abdus Salam, to develop the atomic bomb in 1974. This was the turning point in Pakistan-India history, as a never-ending arms race with specialised military-industrial complexes ensued over the decades. Pakistan managed to achieve nuclear status in 1984, and even allegedly threatened to launch nuclear strikes on Indian cities following India’s psychological military exercise on the Sindh- Rajasthan border called Operation Brasstacks in 1987 that was ostensibly aimed to invade Pakistan. The new millennium brought further hostilities in South Asia with terrorism becoming a major headache for the region. The 2002 and 2008 Pakistan-India standoffs, following accusations of state-sponsored terrorism against Pakistan, could have triggered a nuclear war. Several think tanks such as Chatham House and the Atlantic Council are of the view that South Asia possesses the greatest threat in terms of nuclear security, as not only an inter-state standoff is catastrophic but nuclear terrorism following the rise of militancy in the region also poses a great risk. Both Pakistan and India have evolved their nuclear arsenals into tactical category that can be launched from land, air and potentially sea. While Pakistan possesses Inter-Mediate Range Missile (IRBM) based warheads, such as Shaheen III, India plans on introducing Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile based warheads, such as Surya, in the next couple of years. This is extremely dangerous on part of India that fails to realise the consequences such steps could have. Despite major security challenges, Pakistan’s nuclear safety track record is stable. Furthermore, the US has provided the Indians a major civil-nuclear deal in 2006 for energy needs, but it seems that India may be diverting certain materials for weapons development. By failing to provide Pakistan a similar deal under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) guidelines, the US is not only favouring Indian lobbyists but also encouraging a dangerous arms race in the region. Moreover, it is also discriminating against Pakistan by adopting a “do more” policy, and showing unreasonable concerns over Pakistan’s acquisition of tactical nukes that are under the Strategic Plans Division’s (SPD) command. India is expanding its nuclear weapons even under a bad safety record, and has also recently spread its influence across the Southern Indian Ocean. Pakistan has recently adopted the full-spectrum minimum deterrence doctrine in response to India’s Cold-Start Doctrine. This is in stark contrast to Pakistan’s previous doctrine that was based on minimum-credible deterrence. It is noteworthy to mention that Pakistan has adopted the new doctrine by compulsion due to India’s hegemonic role in South Asia, and hence, the absolute requirement for such a policy in the current scenario. When looking at the controversy surrounding the membership of the elite Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), both India and Pakistan are vying hard for inclusion in the group. Although both states have not yet signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), India managed to get a waiver for importing and researching on nuclear-grade materials under the NSG’s guidelines. Furthermore, its application for NSG membership is solely based on being accepted as a legitimate nuclear weapons state. India’s Foreign Secretary Subramanhyam Jaishankar already tried to lobby with NSG member states on the country’s nuclear policies during the group’s plenary session at Seoul in June 2016, but certain countries such as China, Turkey and Brazil had serious reservations. On the other hand, Pakistan too lobbied with the NSG member states on India’s uncertain nuclear policies, and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif wrote to 17 prime ministers whose respective states are part of the NSG. Intensive lobbying efforts resulted in India’s application being rejected with nine countries in opposition. Many analysts including former Indian ambassador to France, Rakesh Sood, and former Indian foreign minister Salman Khurshid, are of the opinion that China played a key role in blocking India’s entry into the club due to political reasons. These reasons arise from the perception that with the 21st century being touted as the Asian Century where India and China would lead the world, China also harbours the ambition to contain India. However, this is a debatable assessment given the fact that India’s rise was pumped by the US since the early 2000s. The US wishes to promote “Made in India” rather than “Made in China” to slow the Chinese economy since both states host cheap labour policies. The US is also promoting the establishment of a military-industrial complex in India through production of F-16 jets in the future. If that were to happen it could be quite an alarming situation further escalating the arms race in South Asia. For the betterment of the region, is hoped that balance of equilibrium is largely maintained in South Asia, which in turn would help to achieve overall stability. Peace and not war should be the goal of all countries of the region. The writer is a geopolitical analyst at Business Plus. He can be reached at hassankhan440@gmail.com and tweets @mhassankhan06