In a world still haunted by the specter of nuclear conflict, two nations—Pakistan and Ghana—have, in very different ways, made headlines this week for their approaches to the nuclear dilemma. On one side, Pakistan has unveiled a new military command designed to bolster its conventional deterrence against neighboring India. On the other, Ghana has reaffirmed its commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free future, joining a growing list of countries backing the global ban on nuclear arms. While their strategies diverge, both moves reflect the enduring challenge of finding security in a nuclear-armed world.
Pakistan’s announcement of its Army Rocket Force Command (ARFC) comes hot on the heels of a tense four-day military confrontation with India in May 2025. According to reporting by The Express Tribune, the creation of the ARFC is not a knee-jerk response to the latest skirmish, as some have speculated. Instead, it’s the product of years of internal debate and strategic planning among Pakistani military leaders and scientists. For decades, Pakistan has struggled to address a fundamental problem: how to balance India’s formidable conventional military advantage without relying too heavily on the nuclear option.
The answer, it seems, has been to steadily enhance Pakistan’s long-range conventional strike capabilities. The ARFC consolidates these assets—previously scattered among various artillery divisions—under a single, unified command. This move is about more than just organizational tidiness. As The Express Tribune notes, it’s a bid for “synergy, efficiency and doctrinal clarity.” It’s about using existing resources in smarter, more coordinated ways, rather than simply amassing more firepower.
Central to the ARFC’s arsenal are the Fateh-series rockets. These systems, boasting improved range and precision, symbolize what Pakistani officials describe as a new phase in the country’s conventional military doctrine. The aim is not just to possess more destructive weapons, but to have the flexibility and control needed to deter aggression without immediately escalating to nuclear threats.
“The ARFC is the manifestation of that journey,” wrote Kamran Yousaf, a senior foreign affairs correspondent for The Express Tribune. He emphasized that these new capabilities are designed to allow Pakistan to wage “short, sharp and intense firepower duels” in future conflicts, imposing costs on an adversary without triggering a full-scale war. In practical terms, this means Pakistan can now credibly threaten high-value targets deep within India, even in the face of India’s growing investments in missile defense and conventional modernization.
The timing of the ARFC’s public unveiling, around September 28, 2025, was no accident. With India steadily expanding its military edge and modernizing its forces, Pakistan’s move is as much about sending a message as it is about operational readiness. By institutionalizing the ARFC, Islamabad is signaling that it has the means to circumvent India’s air defense umbrella and strike across its territory if provoked. This, in turn, is meant to complicate Indian war plans and raise the costs of any potential miscalculation.
Importantly, Pakistani officials and analysts stress that the ARFC is a conventional force—distinct from the country’s nuclear arsenal. “These are conventional systems, developed indigenously over decades, separate from Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Their utility is not in threatening nuclear war but in providing a credible non-nuclear option,” The Express Tribune reported. The hope is that by strengthening conventional deterrence, Pakistan can avoid the dangerous temptation to rely solely on nuclear weapons to balance India’s superiority. In the words of the article, “What ARFC offers is the ability to ensure that any conflict remains short, sharp and intensely costly for the aggressor.”
Still, the move is not without controversy. Some observers worry that blurring the line between conventional and nuclear deterrence might raise the risk of escalation. Others argue that, in a region where both sides possess nuclear weapons, any enhancement of conventional capabilities is preferable to the alternative: a hair-trigger reliance on nuclear arms. As the article puts it, “War between two nuclear states remains unthinkable. But peace is only preserved when both sides understand the price of miscalculation. ARFC is Pakistan’s way of making sure India understands that price.”
While Pakistan seeks to bolster its deterrence options, Ghana is taking a principled stand against nuclear weapons altogether. On September 28, 2025, Ghana officially reaffirmed its status as a nuclear-weapon-free state by depositing its instrument of ratification for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) at the United Nations. The move, announced by Minister of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, was unanimously approved by Ghana’s Cabinet and Parliament, according to GBC Ghana Online.
In his statement, Minister Ablakwa celebrated Ghana’s long-standing advocacy for global nuclear disarmament, recalling the historic 1962 World Without the Bomb conference convened by the country’s first President, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. “This is a proud moment for Ghana and one that would have made our Founder absolutely proud,” the Minister declared. He also noted the honor of meeting representatives from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, during the UN General Assembly.
The TPNW, adopted at the UN in 2017 and entering into force in January 2021, represents the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively ban nuclear weapons. It prohibits their development, testing, production, possession, stockpiling, and use. By ratifying the treaty, Ghana joins 68 other states that have committed to this ambitious vision of a world without nuclear arms.
Yet, as GBC Ghana Online points out, the path to global disarmament remains fraught. Nine countries—including the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—still maintain nuclear arsenals and have not joined the treaty. Their ongoing programs are a stark reminder of the challenges facing the disarmament movement.
Ghana’s ratification underscores a persistent divide in global security thinking: while some nations seek ever-more sophisticated means to deter or fight wars in a nuclear-armed world, others are doubling down on the hope that nuclear weapons can one day be abolished altogether. Both approaches reflect deep-seated anxieties—and aspirations—about how best to keep the peace.
As the world watches developments in South Asia and at the United Nations, the stories of Pakistan and Ghana offer a study in contrasts. One nation is refining its military toolkit to deter conflict below the nuclear threshold; the other is reaffirming its faith in international law and the possibility of a world without nuclear bombs. Whether these paths will lead to greater security is an open question. But for now, they serve as a powerful reminder that the nuclear dilemma remains as urgent—and as complex—as ever.