India fears Pakistan’s nuclear weapons

For India, the worst possible fallout from US-led strikes on Afghanistan would be an Islamic fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan, placing nuclear weapons in radical hands.

This week, the heaviest firing in 10 months across the cease-fire line between the two countries was a reminder of the tension between the long-time foes, which both tested nuclear weapons three years ago.

It’s believed the Pakistani government has clear control over its nuclear weapons. But Indians worry that this could change because some members of Pakistan’s military, and many of the country’s Muslim militants, oppose the government’s co-operation with US strikes in Afghanistan.

‘‘There are reasons to be concerned if there were to be a coup d’etat or the military government were destabilised,’’ said Shannon Kile, a researcher at the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research in Sweden. He said any change in who controls Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could be dangerous.

Pakistan’s president, General Pervez Musharraf, backs Washington’s efforts to root out bin Laden, the chief suspect in the September 11 terror attacks on the United States, and undermine the Taliban rulers who shelter him in Afghanistan.

But thousands of Pakistanis, egged on by Muslim clerics, have surged into the streets to protest at the US air strikes on Afghanistan, burning buildings and fighting with police.

Musharraf shuffled his top military brass this month to remove possible rivals. But that has done little to make Indians less edgy about whether the general, who seized power in a 1999 coup, could be overthrown himself by officers sympathetic to Afghanistan and bin Laden.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since their independence from Britain in 1947. Tensions often flare over India’s accusations that Pakistan aids Muslim militants fighting for the independence of India’s Kashmir state or its merger with Pakistan.

On Monday, the Indian Army shelled Pakistani military posts across the cease-fire line in Kashmir, and a military statement said it was punishment for supporting the militants. Pakistan posts returned fire.

American diplomatic sources in Pakistan - who spoke on condition of anonymity - said they do not expect a hot war now between Pakistan and India, and most analysts think nuclear arms would not be available to play a role. The nuclear weapons of both countries are thought to be stored in unassembled form in well-guarded locations.

Still, that has not quieted fears in India that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could fall into the wrong hands.

Indian defence analyst Brahma Chellaney suggested the United States should have a contingency plan for taking control of Pakistan’s nuclear assets should the country start falling apart.

Shannon Kile noted the United States has a special team to seize nuclear weapons in unstable situations. He said a US mission took over half a ton of highly enriched uranium from poorly guarded sites in Kazakstan in 1994.

Indian analysts interpreted recent statements by Musharraf as warning his citizens of just such a scenario, implying Pakistan must either side with Washington or risk losing its nuclear weapons.

In a September 25 speech, Musharraf mentioned the danger to Pakistan’s ‘‘strategic nuclear and missile assets’’ when he warned that making a wrong decision about the US anti-terrorist campaign could lead to ‘‘unbearable losses.’’

‘‘There was a fear that the nuclear assets might be taken out by the Americans,’’ said Chellaney, who helped write India’s no-first-strike nuclear doctrine.

Information about India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals is highly classified.

But Kile’s Stockholm institute estimates Pakistan has a stockpile of components that can form 15-20 nuclear weapons with warheads of 1,325-1,765lbs of highly enriched uranium. It estimates Pakistan has additional material to make 30-52 more nuclear weapons and believes Islamabad had technological help from China.

India has 20-30 unassembled nuclear weapons stockpiled with enough material for building an additional 45-95 warheads, the Swedish institute estimates.

Kile said most assessments are that India and Pakistan are expanding their stockpiles.

Pakistan’s UN ambassador, Shamshad Ahmad, rejected concerns that mastery over his country’s nuclear arsenal could be lost.

‘‘Our nuclear command and control system is in very responsible hands,’’ he told the Associated Press last month.

Despite that reassurance and the US belief that the two countries do not have nuclear weapons ready for any war, Chellaney said tighter controls should be established on both sides.

He said the Indian military is out of the nuclear control loop, while in Pakistan which has not ruled out first use of nuclear weapons - the military controls the weapons.

Chellaney is a researcher for the Centre for Policy Research, which recommended two years ago that India establish a nuclear chain of command similar to the one that Pakistan announced in 1999. It remains undone.

However, Kile said it might be more worrisome if the two sides had fully established their nuclear command structures.

‘‘When two hostile neighbours have a border dispute, the fact that they don’t have hair trigger arrangements in place is not necessarily a bad thing,’’ he said.