Pakistan’s Missile Program and the Global Double Standards

Gloomy narratives are roaming persistently against Pakistan’s missile program, which misrepresent that Pakistan is developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) that could target the US. Last month, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, while presenting the 2026 Annual Threat Assessment 2026, mentioned that, along with others, Pakistan was pursuing long-range missiles. However, these claims are baseless. It empirically and evidently misinterprets Pakistan`s strategic capabilities, which are exclusively defensive-oriented and Indian centric. Such claims also overshadow the realities of global missile development and advancement. Ironically, the report does not mention India`s long-range missile systems capable of targeting the US and its allies with nuclear warheads.

It is important to note that long-range missile systems do not serve Pakistan`s strategic interests.  First, it is crucial to understand the definition and characteristics of an ICBM, which must exceed a range of roughly 5500 km so that it can strike targets across the continents. The Shaheen III, Pakistan’s most advanced missile system, has an approximately 2750 km range, which does not fit into the ICBM category but rather into the Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) category. This range is not for extra-continental targets but to cover the Indian strategic points, such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to strengthen Pakistan`s deterrence vis-à-vis India

Secondly, analysts and non-proliferation experts in various reports have denied this claim against Pakistan, citing time and again that Islamabad’s strategic posture promotes “regional deterrence,” not global projection. Pakistan follows credible minimum deterrence, which clearly depicts that the advancement in missile systems of Pakistan is solely for strategic balance and deterrence purposes against its South Asian rival, India.

These overstated assertions indicate a greater analytical prejudice. Pakistan’s capabilities are being selectively exaggerated, while similar or even superior developments in other countries are normalized. Notably, India has already tested missiles with ranges exceeding 5000 kms (such as Agni-V), going beyond placing her on the threshold of a true intercontinental capability. Moreover, the missile doctrine of India explicitly mentions China and Pakistan, which means a more extended strategic outlook. On the same note, Australia is investing in the long-range strike capabilities of cruise missile and sophisticated delivery mechanisms in the changing posture of defence under AUKUS. Nevertheless, Australia is not a perceived as a threatening actor. These developments are not seen as threats but as regular security procedures and this two sidedness says more about the geopolitical discourses than the real threats.

The tables added here further make the picture clearer, as they compare the nuclear warhead inventories, military spending, and the ranges of the missile systems that nuclear countries have developed so far. Pakistan’s estimated 170 warheads and $10.2 billion in military spending are tiny compared to India’s, which is around 190, while India’s military spending is approximately $86.1 billion (estimated by SPIRI in its 2025 Report). Besides, the US has 5,042 warheads and $997 billion in military spending, Russia has 5,420 warheads and $149 billion in military spending, and China has 620 warheads and $314 billion in military spending (Table 1).

Table 1Comparison of Nuclear Warhead Inventories and Military Spending

No.	Country	Estimated Nuclear Warhead Inventories	Military Spending 2024 (USD Billion)
1	Pakistan	170	10.2
2	India	190	86.1
3	China	620	314
4	US	5042	149
5	Russia	5420	997

Source: Federation of American Scientists, SIPRI

Pakistan’s longest-range missile is still in the regional bracket, covering only Indian territory. Whereas, India and the major powers field or pursue true intercontinental systems. CSIS also notes that the Shaheen-III’s extended range allows Pakistan to target the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and says this was described as the sole reason for its development. (Table 2) These calculations make it harder for great powers to sustain the claim that Pakistan’s technological development is uniquely alarming while larger and faster-growing arsenals elsewhere are treated as normal.

Table 2: Comparison by Longest Range

No.	Country	Missile	Range	Class
1	Pakistan	Shaheen-III	2,750 km	MRBM
2	India	Agni-V	5,000–8,000 km	ICBM
3	Russia	RS-24 Yars	10,500 km	ICBM
4	United States	Minuteman III	13,000 km	ICBM
5	China	DF-41	12,000–15,000 km	ICBM

Source: CSIS Missile Defence Project

Modernization of missile systems is a normal security measure and power projection of the strategic competition among major powers, such as the US, Russia, and China, which are maintaining and expanding intercontinental missile arsenals. In comparison, the missile capabilities of Pakistan are far more limited and regionally focused and comparatively modest. Moreover, missile development itself is not an aggressive intent because it is not only defined by its tech-type and range, but it also depends on the state’s military policy, its Doctrine, the state’s geography, and the threat perception. So, in the case of Pakistan, these three factors clearly point towards India rather than any extra-regional target.

In short, the assertion of pursuing an ICBM capability by Pakistan remains unconvincing and speculative. Such a shift would require major technological, financial, and doctrinal changes that are not visible in open-source evidence and would also contradict Pakistan’s long-stated policy of credible minimum deterrence. Much of the panic that surrounds this question seems to be rooted not so much in strategic reality as in the politics of non-proliferation, in which fanning up threats can be used to advance diplomatic and geopolitical goals. Consequently, the discussion of the missile program of Pakistan as a threat to the global community on the intercontinental level is misplaced, and it forgets about the global growth of the recognized missile holders, which is much greater.