In today’s complex international political landscape, nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missile (LRBM) programs often spark debates about security and global power dynamics. Recently, US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer raised concerns about Pakistan’s ballistic missile program, alleging its potential to target the United States. While these claims were swiftly countered by Pentagon Press Secretary Brigadier General Patrick Ryder, who emphasized Pakistan’s role as a key regional ally, they reflect broader geopolitical efforts to pressure regional players like Pakistan.
These remarks overlook the defensive nature of Pakistan’s missile programs and highlight a recurring pattern where smaller nations’ security concerns are downplayed in favor of maintaining global power asymmetries. For Pakistan, as for other states like Iran and Syria, LRBMs are not symbols of aggression but essential tools of deterrence—a means of survival in an unequal world.
For nations constantly facing security threats, deterrence is a key strategy. Surrounded by powerful adversaries and subjected to economic and political pressures, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles act as critical equalizers. These capabilities address existential threats posed by India, a larger and economically superior neighbor. Pakistan’s defense programs are not a luxury but a necessity in a region fraught with historical conflicts and power imbalances.
Like Pakistan, China’s defense program is also focused on deterrence. It has advanced its missile technology to safeguard sovereignty and maintain balance in the Asia-Pacific while countering US influence in the region. Similarly, Russia has invested heavily in hypersonic missile technology to maintain its strategic edge. While Russia and China’s missile programs are framed as strategic necessities, smaller nations like Pakistan and Iran face disproportionate scrutiny and sanctions for pursuing similar technologies. This geopolitical hypocrisy reveals how missile technology, whether for global powers or vulnerable states, is shaped by context and motivations rather than an inherent threat.
The insinuation that Pakistan’s missile program is designed to target the US is not only misguided but also ignores the realities of South Asia, where Pakistan’s focus remains regional. Its security concerns are centered on India’s conventional military superiority and its missile development is aimed at maintaining a credible deterrence. To suggest otherwise disregards the context in which these programs exist and fuels unnecessary tensions.
Paradoxically, the criticism of Pakistan’s LRBM program exposes a pattern of selective scrutiny. The US, while modernizing its nuclear arsenal, often targets smaller nations for their defensive measures. Selective scrutiny creates an uneven global playing field by using exaggerated threats from weaker nations as pretexts for economic and political interventions, ultimately marginalizing these states in international affairs.
This double standard becomes even clearer when viewed in the regional context. While the U.S. raises alarms about Pakistan’s missile development, it continues to support India’s military modernization, including advanced missile defense systems. Meanwhile, countries like Israel maintain significant nuclear capabilities, yet receive little criticism or scrutiny due to their strategic alliances. This unbalanced support further tilts the regional power dynamics, exacerbating security challenges for nations like Pakistan while forcing them to enhance their deterrence measures.
For Pakistan, investing in ballistic missile programs is not an act of aggression but a strategic necessity. Allegations that these programs are offensive—or aimed at distant nations like the US – ignore regional power dynamics. Long-range ballistic missiles ensure a nation’s ability to respond to an attack, a concept known as second-strike capability. For Pakistan, such systems maintain strategic stability in South Asia, deterring adversaries from preemptive strikes.
Israel’s nuclear capabilities and missile systems also illustrate the dual role of deterrence and strategic leverage. Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal deters aggression and asserts dominance in the Middle East. This dual use—as deterrence and leverage—underscores the complex role of nuclear weapons in international relations.
Unfortunately, such systems are often portrayed as instruments of aggression rather than defense. This mischaracterization isolates weaker nations diplomatically and justifies punitive measures like sanctions. Ironically, these actions escalate regional tensions and deepen mistrust among nations.
The plight of Palestine offers a sobering lesson about the dangers of denying smaller nations the ability to defend themselves. Decades of occupation and aggression have left Palestinians vulnerable to systemic violence, with international support often limited to symbolic gestures. The denial of advanced defensive capabilities has perpetuated this cycle of oppression, highlighting the dire consequences of power asymmetry.
Pakistan’s leaders have learnt these lessons well. Developing nuclear weapons and LRBMs is a strategic compulsion and not a choice for Pakistan. Defensive measures like these allow Pakistan to protect itself in an increasingly unequal world. Indeed, the US assertion that Pakistan’s LRBM program could target America is a misaligned perception.
A rational approach requires acknowledging the legitimate security concerns of smaller nations. Global powers must prioritize mutual understanding and strategic stability, addressing regional tensions without resorting to economic or political coercion.
Breaking the cycle of mistrust and hostility demands a fairer approach to non-proliferation. Recognizing every nation’s right to self-defense and addressing glaring double standards can open pathways to better global diplomacy. Constructive dialogue, not coercion, should drive efforts toward stability.
For Pakistan, the path forward lies in balancing strong deterrence with active diplomacy. Transparency in defense policies and meaningful international engagement can counter misperceptions and build trust with global partners.
