On October 10, 2025, the United States approved Pakistan as a buyer for the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), a move that is shaking up the already fragile security landscape of South Asia. The decision, part of a Raytheon contract exceeding $2.5 billion, marks the latest twist in a region where the balance of military power is never static for long. For Pakistan, whose air force depends heavily on U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter jets, the acquisition of new AMRAAM variants—boasting ranges of over 150 kilometers and “fire-and-forget” technology—represents a substantial leap forward in air combat capability. But for India, and indeed the broader international community, the sale raises old anxieties about deterrence, escalation, and the risk of another arms race between nuclear-armed neighbors.
The timing of this deal has not gone unnoticed. Pakistan is currently grappling with an acute economic crisis and ongoing political instability, yet its military remains steadfast in its pursuit of modernization. According to IANS, analysts argue that Washington’s decision to greenlight advanced missile sales rewards a security establishment in Islamabad that has historically prioritized military parity with India over domestic reform. The deal, they say, could embolden Pakistan’s military to double down on its conventional deterrence strategy, rather than seeking diplomatic solutions to regional tensions.
American arms transfers to Pakistan have a long and complicated history. During both the Cold War and the post-9/11 era, U.S. weaponry intended for counterterrorism often wound up strengthening Pakistan’s conventional posture against India. The F-16 fleet—initially justified on counterinsurgency grounds—quickly became central to Pakistan’s deterrence strategy. Now, with access to advanced AMRAAMs renewed, there are concerns that Islamabad may once again seek leverage through military might rather than dialogue.
India, for its part, has not stood still. It has developed its own Astra beyond-visual-range missile system, signaling an increasing degree of self-reliance. This stands in sharp contrast to Pakistan’s continued dependence on foreign suppliers for high-end military technology. Critics in New Delhi contend that the U.S. risks undermining its burgeoning strategic partnership with India by strengthening the arsenal of an adversary. The result, they warn, could force India to divert resources to counter Pakistan’s air upgrades just as it faces mounting security challenges along its disputed border with China.
Security experts have also sounded alarms about technology security. Pakistan’s track record, marred by the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, leaves lingering doubts about its ability to safeguard advanced systems. With Islamabad’s defense ties to China and Turkey expanding, the risk that Western technology could end up in unintended hands remains a real concern. The precedent set by this sale could prompt other regional powers to pursue similar purchases, accelerating an already dangerous arms buildup.
The risks in South Asia are not merely theoretical. The 2019 Balakot episode, in which Pakistani F-16s armed with older AMRAAM versions confronted Indian aircraft, is a stark reminder of how quickly crises can escalate. Each new acquisition compresses decision times during confrontations, heightening the potential for miscalculation. According to a recent analysis published by South Asian Voices, the May 2025 crisis between India and Pakistan demonstrated just how rapidly localized confrontations can spiral out of control, thanks to misperceptions, doctrinal ambiguities, and conventional imbalances.
Strategic stability in South Asia, as defined by experts, rests on three pillars: first-strike stability, crisis stability, and arms race stability. Credible deterrence—anchored in secure second-strike capabilities and survivable arsenals of comparable size—is seen as indispensable for preventing miscalculation. Yet, as the South Asian Voices analysis notes, parity alone is not enough. The May 2025 crisis, where both sides were pushed alarmingly close to miscalculation, revealed the continuing dangers of misperception and brinkmanship in an environment of growing complexity and reduced predictability.
The global context only adds to the uncertainty. Strategic stability is under strain worldwide, with conflicts such as the ongoing Gaza conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war disrupting established arms control dialogues. The future of the New START treaty, set to expire in February 2026, remains uncertain, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to abide by its terms for another year. Meanwhile, the proliferation of emerging technologies—artificial intelligence (AI), anti-satellite weapons, hypersonic glide vehicles, and lethal autonomous weapons systems—introduces new challenges to deterrence stability, both globally and in South Asia.
AI, in particular, has come under intense scrutiny. On September 22, 2025, over 200 prominent individuals, including ten Nobel Prize winners, published an open letter urging urgent international safeguards against dangerous uses of AI, especially in decisions related to nuclear war. The letter, as reported by The Progressive, warned that advanced AI systems—growing ever more autonomous and less understood even by their creators—could be used in nuclear war decision-making, raising unprecedented dangers. The signatories called for policymakers to set “red lines” against AI use in nuclear war by the end of 2026, drawing a parallel to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a model for international cooperation despite mutual distrust.
Currently, nine nations possess nuclear weapons, with India, Israel, and Pakistan notably never signing the original NPT treaty. The open letter’s authors argue that the rapid pace of AI development, coupled with existing geopolitical tensions, makes international agreements to monitor and control AI development all the more urgent. The example of nuclear governance, they say, shows that it is possible to pass international agreements to address extinction-level risks—if nations act before it’s too late.
Back in South Asia, the relentless march of military modernization is visible on both sides of the India-Pakistan divide. India’s nuclearization of the Indian Ocean and weaponization of outer space—exemplified by the INS Arighat submarine equipped with K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missiles—has introduced new risks of crisis instability at sea. Pakistan, meanwhile, has worked to maintain a credible second-strike capability, but the overall trajectory is one of increasing complexity and unpredictability.
The United States, for its part, has been recalibrating its South Asia policy. In recent years, Washington has courted India as a counterweight to China, institutionalizing military cooperation through agreements like LEMOA, COMCASA, and BECA. While these alignments are primarily aimed at managing Chinese influence, they may also embolden India to adopt more assertive postures toward its neighbors. Simultaneously, U.S. tariffs on Indian goods and calls for reduced Russian oil imports highlight the shifting sands of Indo-U.S. relations.
In this environment, the recent AMRAAM sale to Pakistan is seen by many as a missed opportunity to promote restraint and dialogue. Rather than steering Pakistan toward economic recovery and democratic consolidation, the U.S. has reinforced a long-standing militarization impulse. As the South Asian Voices analysis concludes, “Absent renewed political dialogue, regional arms control initiatives, and greater external restraint by major powers, the region risks perpetuating cycles of confrontation that repeatedly test nuclear thresholds.”
For the people of South Asia, the stakes could hardly be higher. The region’s future depends on a delicate balance of power, but also on the willingness of its leaders—and those in Washington, Beijing, and beyond—to choose dialogue over escalation, and restraint over brinkmanship. As new technologies and old rivalries collide, the margin for error is shrinking fast.