The lack of ICBM capacity for either side makes nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan and India effective as MAD deterrence due to the simple fact that any use of such weapons is likely to be nearly as destructive to their own side as it would to the enemy.
… that non-ICBM nuclear weapons would be ‘nearly as destructive’ to the user as to the enemy, of geographically adjacent nations?
India has roughly 80-100 weapons. India has been focusing on low-yield devices (with most apparently falling in the half-kiloton range.) Given how nuclear fallout works and the like… India and Pakistan launching their arsenals at one another would result in a large contaminated area affecting both nations.
Now, if you’re talking about the effectiveness of MAD deterrence … if MAD was ineffective the world would have glowed in the dark after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Can you substantiate this claim?
… that non-ICBM nuclear weapons would be ‘nearly as destructive’ to the user as to the enemy, of geographically adjacent nations?
India has roughly 80-100 weapons. India has been focusing on low-yield devices (with most apparently falling in the half-kiloton range.) Given how nuclear fallout works and the like… India and Pakistan launching their arsenals at one another would result in a large contaminated area affecting both nations.
Now, if you’re talking about the effectiveness of MAD deterrence … if MAD was ineffective the world would have glowed in the dark after the Cuban Missile Crisis.