US Sanctions and Pakistan’s Commitment to Its Nuclear and Missile Programs

Driven by the need to protect its national sovereignty, sustain regional deterrence, and assert strategic independence in an unstable geopolitical environment, Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs have come at a substantial cost. These sacrifices reflect Pakistan’s unwavering commitment to its defense, security, and strategic autonomy. One of the most significant costs has been economic: the development and maintenance of nuclear and missile infrastructure is extraordinarily expensive. The Pakistani government’s focus on these programs has required diverting a considerable portion of the national budget to defense, often at the expense of vital sectors like healthcare, education, and infrastructure development. The Pakistani public has had to make significant sacrifices, underscoring the perceived importance of these programs for the country’s survival and defense. 

Pakistan’s economy has faced challenges such as low growth, high inflation, and widespread poverty. With limited resources, Pakistan had to balance its defense needs with economic development, often prioritizing military spending over social welfare. In the early stages of its nuclear and missile program, Pakistan relied on indigenous methods of development, and at times, covert channels, to acquire the necessary technology. This self-reliance placed a strain on the country’s industrial base, directing resources away from civilian projects in favor of military advancements.
Pakistan’s 1998 nuclear tests, which officially declared the country a nuclear weapons state, led to severe international sanctions. The United States, European Union, and other nations imposed stringent measures aimed at limiting Pakistan’s ability to acquire critical technology and components for its nuclear and missile programs. These sanctions not only restricted access to essential technology and expertise but also isolated Pakistan diplomatically. The international community’s response has been criticized for its double standards: while India, despite its own controversial history, faced fewer restrictions, Pakistan was subjected to far harsher treatment.

Despite these challenges, Pakistan persevered in advancing its nuclear and missile capabilities, relying heavily on domestic resources, local scientific talent, and covert collaborations. The economic burden of maintaining these programs amid sanctions was immense, but Pakistan prioritized its national defense and security over short-term economic benefits or international partnerships. Although Pakistan’s nuclear program was regarded as a crucial measure for its national security, it came with significant diplomatic consequences. Following its nuclear tests in 1998, Pakistan faced widespread international condemnation and diplomatic isolation. Led by the United States, many countries denounced the tests, viewing them as a breach of international norms and a catalyst for an arms race in South Asia. This development has had a lasting impact on Pakistan’s relations with the West, particularly with the United States. While Pakistan remained a key ally in the War on Terror in the 2000s, its nuclear program continued to be a source of tension in its bilateral relations with Western powers. Pakistan has long faced diplomatic pressure to reduce its nuclear capabilities and comply with global non-proliferation norms. However, the country has consistently argued that its nuclear arsenal is vital for ensuring its security, particularly in the face of its larger, nuclear-armed neighbor, India. 

Pakistan continues to experience a double standard from the United States, which has not treated India and Pakistan equally. Despite India’s involvement in international incidents, such as its controversial actions in countries like the US and Canada, the global community continues to favor India over Pakistan. Recently, the US State Department issued a statement highlighting concerns over the development and proliferation of Pakistan’s long-range missile capabilities, leading to sanctions on four Pakistani entities. This follows earlier sanctions imposed in 2023 on Chinese and Belarusian companies for providing components to Pakistan’s ballistic missile program, as well as sanctions in 2021 against Pakistani companies allegedly supporting the country’s nuclear and missile development. 

In September 2024, the US again singled out Pakistan’s missile program, particularly the Shaheen-III (with a range of 2750 km) and Ababeel (with a range of 2200 km) missiles, which are equipped with Multiple Re-entry Vehicle (MRV) capabilities. These missiles are considered among the most advanced in Pakistan’s arsenal. Meanwhile, India recently test-fired its own MRV missile, the Agni-V, an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of 5000-8000 km. While Pakistan’s Ababeel has a shorter range compared to India’s Agni-V, it is specifically designed for Pakistan’s self-defense, primarily to counter India’s strategic assets such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and emerging nuclear submarine bases in the east. 

The sanctions and diplomatic pressure from the US are seen by Pakistan as discriminatory and largely ineffective. Pakistan’s missile program is independent of US cooperation, and these restrictions are unlikely to hinder its progress. In fact, such actions could push Pakistan toward seeking alternative partnerships, particularly with the Eastern Bloc. The US risks alienating a key regional ally in the fight against terrorism by imposing such sanctions. Pakistan possesses short-range and less advanced missiles compared to those of other superpowers, missile-equipped nations, and India. Its missile system is not intended to pose a threat to any country but is solely designed for the defense of Pakistan.
It is crucial to emphasize that the National Command Authority (NCA) is the supreme body in Pakistan responsible for decisions related to nuclear and missile policy and programs. The NCA plays a central role in safeguarding Pakistan’s national security, overseeing operational, control, and command decisions regarding its nuclear weapons. Established in 2000 by the National Security Council (NSC), the NCA replaced the Air Force Strategic Command, which had been formed in 1983. The NCA is chaired by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and includes key officials such as the Federal Ministers for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance, and Interior, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The NCA operates through two primary committees: the ECC and the Development Control Committee (DCC). The Strategic Plans Division (SPD) is tasked with implementing and managing NCA policies. Any mobilization of nuclear assets requires approval from both the NCA and the NSC, ensuring that no nuclear assets can fall into the hands of any individual or extremist groups. Furthermore, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors regularly visit Pakistan and have affirmed that the country’s nuclear assets are secure and reliable, dispelling concerns about their safety.
Ultimately, Pakistan remains steadfast in its commitment to its peaceful nuclear and missile programs, which are viewed as essential for the country’s defense. The entire nation, including all political parties, strongly supports these programs, recognizing them as critical for Pakistan’s survival and security in an unstable region.