1

Pakistan has emerged as the country with most improved nuclear security credentials in the 2020 Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) report that was released on Jul 22, 2020. Amongst the countries that have 1 kg or more of weapons usable nuclear materials (highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium), Australia has ranked first for the consecutive fifth time and Pakistan is at 19th position, ahead of its neighbour India.

The first NTI security index was released in 2012 to identify priority areas which could help improve global nuclear security efforts that were the focus of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) process under the Obama Administration. The next two reports were also timed for release before the 2014 and 2016 Nuclear Security Summits (NSS), to help identify national actions that could strengthen nuclear security, track progress made by individual states, identify nuclear security priorities for the future, and build accountability by holding states responsible for their inaction. Since it remains an NGO led initiative, several states, including Pakistan remains reluctant to avoid giving undue legitimacy to the work of a non-state entity, especially when there are multilateral platforms like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) responsible for strengthening global nuclear safety and security efforts.

The NTI Index is based on the data gathered from the open sources about state’s national nuclear security efforts, their commitment to international conventions and treaties, and the transparency provided about the nuclear programs. States that do not have military nuclear programs are generally amenable to sharing of information as compared to the nuclear weapons possessor states that cannot provide complete transparency about their military programs for obvious reasons. This makes it easier for countries like Australia that does not have significant nuclear infrastructure, to continue occupying the top slot.

A more objective criterion by the NTI could be to compare states with matching nuclear infrastructures, such as India and Pakistan, in order to get a better understanding of the improvements in their national nuclear security efforts. According to the recent NTI Index, Pakistan has made significant progress in improving its security and control measures and stands at 15th position, which is three positions ahead of India. Once compared to the other countries, Pakistan has gained 25 points, which is the second-largest improvement by any country ever since the Index was launched in 2012, which is a result of its strengthened laws and regulations.

In the category of ‘Global Norms’ also Pakistan has gained one point, while in ‘Domestic Commitments and Capacity’, it has gained 16 points and stands at 15th position, whereas India is at the 20th position. The NTI index has placed Pakistan lower in the field of “Risk Environment” which mainly covers domestic political stability and terrorist threats. These factors, however, remain extraneous and not directly related to the national nuclear governance architecture.

Assessing nuclear security efforts by India, the NTI Index has recorded improvement of one point in ‘Risk Environment’ as a result of its improvement in “Illicit Activities by Non-State Actors.’ However, the NTI has once again highlighted a deficiency in India’s nuclear regulatory efforts, since it does not have an independent regulatory authority that could ensure implementation of national nuclear security laws and regulations and verify that the national reports being submitted to the IAEA are in line with the international best practices. This is a long-standing observation and was also highlighted in IAEA’s Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission reports that evaluate states’ regulatory infrastructure. 

Assessing the overall global nuclear security efforts, the NTI has identified some key findings and made recommendations that could help states to improve their national nuclear security efforts:

  • No country has eliminated their stocks of weapons-usable nuclear materials since 2016. This in contrast to the commitments made by some of the states during the NSS process.
  • Regulatory requirements for nuclear security are not comprehensive, with significant weaknesses in key areas. This may lead to a nuclear related incident and backlash against the use of peaceful nuclear technology, such as nuclear energy.
  • Cybersecurity is emerging a major challenge, which makes it imperative for all countries to strengthen their cybersecurity at nuclear facilities.
  • Countries must work to strengthen and sustain political attention on nuclear security, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations should work to achieve universalization of key legal instruments governing nuclear security.
  • The IAEA should work with countries without nuclear materials to build a stronger, more inclusive concept of nuclear security stressing that nuclear security is critical to maintaining public support for peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
  • Countries should increase support for the IAEA by contributing to its Nuclear Security Fund and supporting and participating in IAEA activities.
  • Countries should increase transparency and confidence by publishing annual nuclear security reports, by making public declarations about their progress on nuclear security, and by participating regularly in peer reviews, among other steps.
  • To be responsible stewards, countries considering new nuclear energy capabilities should establish legal and regulatory frameworks that address insider threat prevention, cybersecurity, security culture, physical protection, control and accounting procedures, and response capabilities.

Nuclear security remains a national responsibility and states have obligations to ensure that their national nuclear security architecture is capable of dealing with all potential insider and outside threats to their nuclear facilities and materials. This however could best be achieved through collaborative approaches and by developing a better understanding of national culture and limitations of individual countries. States must nevertheless be encouraged to engage with the existing international instruments and conventions, and to provide requisite transparency, so as to demonstrate their seriousness towards global nuclear security efforts, but this cooperation should be based on realistic expectations and without undermining national security interests of individual states.

~Dr. Adil Sultan is Director at Centre for Aerosapce and Security Studies (CASS). This article was first published on Strafasia https://strafasia.com/nti-index-pakistan-with-most-improved-nuclear-security-credentials/. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »