The tortoise will win this race, and could quicken its pace. But the hare continues to run fast, because nuclear weapons are a sign of strength amid domestic weaknesses and because it can't keep up with the growth of India's conventional military programs.

At present, there is rough nuclear parity between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan having a larger arsenal and India having more advanced air- and sea-based capabilities. Both countries are expanding their capacity to produce bomb-making material, adding cruise missiles to their arsenals and planning to send nuclear weapons to sea. Pakistan's arsenal now exceeds 100 warheads. India is not too far behind.

India, like China, has adopted a relaxed approach to nuclear deterrence. In both countries, national security is equated with strong economies and domestic cohesion. Indian and Chinese leaders value nuclear weapons as expressions of national will and power, rather than as military instruments.

As befitting the home of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian political leaders have great ambivalence about nuclear weapons. They seek the moral high ground while attending to national security imperatives. No other country has waited 24 years between testing its first and second nuclear devices.

In Pakistan, the situation is starkly different. Economic growth is hobbled, foreign reserves are dwindling and the country is plagued by bloodletting. Decisions about nuclear requirements are made by a few generals who view these weapons as a military necessity as well as a political instrument. In Pakistan, political leaders take their guidance from generals. In India, the requests of military leaders often land on deaf ears.

Pakistan's nuclear requirements were set high initially, and grew higher still after the George W. Bush administration agreed to cooperate with India to build nuclear power plants. This civil-nuclear agreement has languished, while Pakistan's military-nuclear programs have ramped up.

After testing nuclear weapons in 1998, Indian and Pakistani authorities embraced a doctrine of minimal, credible deterrence. Now the word "minimal" applies less and less, as their stockpiles have doubled over the past decade. There is little chance that Pakistan and India will end fissile material production for bombs anytime soon.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons can be used to warn India not to advance on Pakistani territory. Its military doctrine has recently embraced short-range, tactical nuclear weapons to counter India's conventional military advantages. At the high end of the targeting spectrum, Pakistan's military appears intent to deny India victory in warfare and to destroy it as a functioning society in the event of a complete breakdown in deterrence.

Slowing this trajectory will be difficult. Nuclear weapons are widely perceived in Pakistan as the nation's crown jewels. Most Pakistanis begrudge governmental corruption and incompetence, but not money spent on The Bomb, which has been imbued with great powers, including the power to keep India at bay and to lift Pakistan onto the world's stage.

Finding stability in this competition will be difficult, in part because China weighs heavily in Indian calculations and because civil-military relations in Pakistan are so unbalanced. Fifteen years and two major crises have passed since India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998 - and they still haven't engaged in serious, sustained nuclear risk-reduction talks.

What might change Pakistan's calculation that more nuclear weapons equates to more security? One way is for New Delhi to take dramatic steps to improve relations and to "take away the enemy image," similar to what Mikhail Gorbachev accomplished when he was leader of the Soviet Union in his dealings with the United States.

There is, however, little appetite within India for bold steps to reinforce the obvious need of the Pakistani Army to focus on internal security threats. Another potential game changer is severe perturbations in Pakistan's economy. Economic upheavals would, however, create even more domestic instability without changing the Pakistan military's dependency on The Bomb.

The safest route to reduce nuclear dangers on the subcontinent is through concerted efforts to improve relations between Pakistan and India. The surest way to do so is by greatly increasing cross-border trade. Leaders in both countries have endorsed this course of action, but underlings are moving slowly ahead of national elections. Even modest progress can be stopped short by another mass-casualty attack on Indian soil designed to disrupt improved ties.

A nuclear arsenal built on very weak economic foundations is inherently unstable, which is reason enough for India to pursue sustained and accelerated trade and investment opportunities with Pakistan. These methods, which have dampened tensions between China and Taiwan, could also serve a similar purpose on the subcontinent.

___________

This op-ed was first published in the International Herald Tribune. 

Photo credit:Antônio Milena via Wikimedia Commons

Click here to read the complete op-ed.

Click here to listen.

Click here to read the complete op-ed.

Read the full story here. 

"The United Nations has taken an important step to close dangerous loopholes that have allowed the international arms trade to operate with impunity. Stopping this deadly trade and establishing common rules is a positive step that will make the world a safer place. Now for the first time the international trade in conventional arms will be regulated by a legally binding treaty. States will be held accountable for their arms trade. Warlords and human rights abusers will have a harder time gaining access to arms."

As a result of Stohl's work for the U.N., Stimson will host an event from 9 to 10:30 a.m. Friday at 1111 19^th St., NW in Washington looking at what the treaty means for the United States, featuring lead U.S. Arms Trade Treaty Negotiator and Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman. The event will highlight the reactions to the successful adoption of the treaty from key U.S. stakeholders and discuss what comes next.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the historic an Arms Trade Treaty by a vote of 154-3 with 23 abstentions. The treaty will be open for signature beginning June 3.

The ATT is the first treaty regulating the international trade in conventional arms by establishing common international standards for national implementation. The absence of such international standards has fueled conflicts, armed violence and crime around the world by allowing rogue regimes, rebel groups, terrorist organizations and criminals to be armed with impunity. For decades, states have tried to close these dangerous loopholes without success.

________

The Stimson Center is a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank that conducts research and offers pragmatic policy ideas on some of the most important peace and security challenges around the world. Stimson was recently honored with a $1 million MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions.

To listen to the interview (beginning at 14:52), click here.

Until recently, the only non-natives to visit the unspoiled Arctic were explorers, Cold War troops and scientific adventurers. Now the Arctic is absorbing a wave of energy company explorers eager to deploy new undersea drilling technologies to tap into vast oil and natural gas deposits thought to be among the largest on the planet.

At the same time, warming temperatures over the past decade have accelerated the melting of sea ice, unlocking the fabled Northwest Passage and other Arctic sea routes for the first time in modern history. This game-changing development has the potential to transform the global shipping industry by slashing distances and costs for ocean-borne cargo moving from Europe to Asia.

Lost amidst these sea changes has been the emergence of another potential source of new economic activity in the region - commercial fishing.

Beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zones extending off the northern coastlines of the five Arctic nations (Russia, Norway, Denmark, Canada, and the U.S.) lies a "donut hole"-- a massive, ungoverned maritime no-man's land that sits at the heart of the Arctic north, beyond international boundaries. It has been covered by ice for centuries.

Now that warming trends are reducing sea ice coverage to unprecedented levels, the region is theoretically accessible by boat in warmer months. In September 2007, for instance, a record 40 percent of central Arctic Ocean waters in the donut hole stayed ice-free.

The region's newfound accessibility raises the prospect of commercial fishing in these waters, with potentially dangerous implications for the region's delicate ecological balance if the practice is unregulated.

The local fish populations' potential inability to withstand commercial exploitation has raised red flags from the international scientific community. The concern is not unwarranted. During the late 20^th century a similar region of ungoverned international maritime space became ice-free in the Bering Sea, leading to such a rapid depletion of local pollack populations that a 1994 treaty was signed to impose more sustainable management policies to prevent the fish stocks' collapse. 

In U.S. Arctic territorial waters off the Alaskan coast, research has revealed most fish stocks in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas are not large enough to sustain commercial exploitation. For local marine species numerous enough to support commercial fishing exploitation (snow crab, Arctic cod, saffron cod), American scientists have said more data must be collected to implement an ecosystem-based approach to sustainable fisheries management and set appropriate catch limits for these species.

However, highlighting the sensitivity of the region's maritime ecosystems, it is likely that fishing Arctic cod and saffron cod will remain banned in U.S. Arctic waters because both species serve a key role in the local food chain, constituting a vital food supply for larger marine predators and birds.

While the U.S. has the enforcement capacity to help ensure these quotas are observed in its territorial waters, the same regulatory infrastructure does not exist in the Arctic's international waters beyond the reach of exclusive economic zones. Further complicating the future of commercial fishing in the High Arctic is confusion over which nation controls what areas.

Perhaps the only thing that seems certain is that these waters will stay increasingly ice-free in the years and decades to come. The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center says the 2013 maximum extent for sea ice coverage ranks as the sixth lowest in satellite records. The 10 lowest maximums in ice coverage in the satellite record occurred in the last 10 years (2004-2013). According to several recent studies, climate model projections indicate that this trend will continue, potentially leading to an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summers in about the year 2035.

In response, the global scientific community is urging caution and patience in the region's newly accessible fishing grounds. Upwards of 2,000 scientists from more than 65 countries recently authored an open letter highlighting the urgent need for an international pact to protect the High Arctic from unsustainable rates of exploitation, to help avoid a repeat of the Bering Sea debacle.

In a position consistent with U.S. policy in Alaskan territorial waters, scientists have essentially suggested a moratorium on new, large-scale commercial fishing until further biological data can be collected on newly accessible fish stocks to gauge their health and potential to withstand both commercial harvesting and rising ocean temperatures. At the same time, the rights of local fisherman in Arctic would be protected under such a moratorium to ensure continuation of their traditional economic livelihoods and guarantee access to an important dietary staple for the region's indigenous populations.

Taking the time to let science determine how much fish can be taken from the Arctic without endangering future catches is the only sensible course. Letting fishing fleets destroy fish populations today is shortsighted and could destroy the potential of the Arctic to provide sustainable fish harvests deep into the 21^st century.