Emran Emon

In the quiet corridors of strategic command centers across Asia, decisions are being made that may shape—or shake—the future of the region and beyond. While the world remains preoccupied with visible geopolitical tensions, there’s a silent, stealthier race unfolding: a nuclear arms competition largely shrouded from public scrutiny. This contest, increasingly intense in South and East Asia, is marked not just by state secrecy, but by a worrying deficit of public discourse, media transparency, and diplomatic accountability. It’s time to bring that conversation to the forefront—before silence becomes complicity.

The harrowing memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are etched into the conscience of humanity. In August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs—Little Boy and Fat Man—that annihilated over 200,000 lives and forever changed the meaning of war. That grim moment remains the only instance of nuclear weapons used in warfare. Yet it also marked the beginning of a new arms calculus, one that has spread far beyond its Western origins.

Today, Asia houses four nuclear-armed states—China, India, Pakistan and North Korea—and at least two threshold states: Israel (though outside Asia’s geographic heart, but relevant in West Asian dynamics) and Iran, whose nuclear intentions continue to stir concern. Add to this mix the evolving postures of Japan and South Korea, two technologically advanced states that remain non-nuclear but capable of rapidly changing course, and the equation grows more volatile.

One of the most troubling aspects of Asia’s nuclear trajectory is the veil of secrecy that surrounds it. While the global community is rightly concerned about transparency, Asian nuclear doctrines remain largely opaque—intentionally vague, sometimes deliberately misleading.

China, for instance, maintains a formal “no first use” policy. Yet its rapid modernization of its nuclear arsenal, development of hypersonic glide vehicles, and establishment of new missile silos raise doubts about its long-term intentions.

India, once a vocal proponent of nuclear disarmament, has gradually shifted to a more ambiguous posture, especially in the wake of border skirmishes with China and persistent tensions with Pakistan. The shift in its nuclear doctrine from minimum credible deterrence to credible minimum deterrence with flexibility is subtle but significant.

Pakistan, meanwhile, continues to expand its nuclear stockpile at a faster rate than any other nation. Its doctrine remains focused on deterring Indian conventional superiority, including through tactical nuclear weapons—a dangerously escalatory approach.

North Korea, the most unpredictable actor, openly flaunts its capabilities while concealing the full extent of its arsenal. Pyongyang’s nuclear ambition is as much about regime survival as it is about power projection.

Despite these developments, mainstream media in these countries rarely questions official narratives. Journalistic access to nuclear policy debates is either restricted or non-existent. Scientific dissent is muted. Public engagement is minimal. This controlled silence is not just a national security measure—it’s a democratic deficit.

Asia’s nuclear dynamics are not driven solely by ideology or military strategy. They are shaped by a web of historical grievances, unresolved borders, economic rivalries, and domestic politics. The nuclear race in Asia is not a replay of the Cold War; it is a multi-vector contest with interlocking fault lines:

Sino-Indian Rivalry: China’s rise and its assertiveness along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) have pushed India to recalibrate its deterrence posture.

India-Pakistan Standoff: Despite having a common cultural past, the two nations remain locked in a cycle of hostility that nuclear deterrence has not defused, but rather complicated.

North Korea vs the U.S.-South Korea-Japan Triangle: Pyongyang’s nuclear brinkmanship is matched by the growing calls within South Korea and Japan for independent deterrents.

Middle East Spillover into Asia: The Iranian nuclear issue, and Israel’s undeclared arsenal, influence West and Central Asian geopolitics, which in turn affect Asian security frameworks.

These rivalries are inflamed by nationalism, domestic political calculations, and the absence of meaningful regional arms control mechanisms.

In much of Asia, especially in South Asia, nuclear discourse remains a state monopoly. Unlike in the West, where civil society, academia, and even whistleblowers have some space to challenge nuclear orthodoxy, Asian nuclear establishments are guarded fortresses.

• Independent journalism is largely absent from nuclear reporting. Stories on missile tests are repeated verbatim from defense ministry press releases.

• Public education about nuclear risks is minimal. Nuclear safety drills are rare, and fallout preparedness almost non-existent.

• Whistleblower protections are weak or non-existent, making it risky for scientists or military insiders to flag safety concerns or policy missteps.

This lack of transparency and accountability is dangerous. Not because the region is inevitably heading for nuclear war—but because miscalculation, miscommunication, or misinterpretation are more likely in the absence of open dialogue.

Instead of fatalistically accepting the nuclear race as inevitable, Asian nations have an opportunity to lead in a different direction. Here’s how:

Regional Nuclear Transparency Pact: An Asia-led initiative for voluntary disclosure of nuclear doctrines, fissile material production, and arms control intent can build trust without undermining sovereignty.

Media Empowerment and Access: Governments must declassify non-sensitive nuclear data and encourage investigative reporting. Responsible and objective journalism enhances national security by surfacing risks before they explode.

Civil Society Forums: Track-2 dialogues involving academics, retired officials, youth leaders, and NGOs can fill the diplomatic vacuum left by stalled official talks. South Asia and Northeast Asia both need regular people-to-people nuclear dialogue platforms.

Education and Public Awareness: Governments should introduce curricula on nuclear ethics, disarmament history, and disaster readiness in schools and universities. A nuclear-aware citizenry is a safer one.

Faith and Cultural Engagement: Asian traditions—from Buddhist non-violence to Islamic responsibility to Hindu religion—have deep philosophical objections to weapons of mass destruction. These moral frameworks can be reinvigorated as cultural counternarratives to militarism.

The Asian nuclear competition, if left unchecked, could become the defining security threat of the 21st century. But that path is not inevitable. The real danger lies not just in warheads or launch codes—it lies in the absence of conversation, the suppression of dissent, and the normalization of secrecy.

We need more than deterrence. We need dialogue. We need not just stronger arsenals, but stronger trust. The memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki must not remain a black-and-white image in history books; it must serve as a living warning, a call to wisdom, and a demand for accountability in our time.

And so, as we drink our morning tea in Dhaka, Delhi, Beijing, Seoul, or Islamabad, let us not forget that silence in the face of the nuclear question is not neutrality—it is negligence. Let us ask questions. Let us seek truth. Let us build peace that does not depend on the threat of annihilation.

The writer is a journalist, columnist and global affairs analyst. He can be reached at emoncolumnist@gmail.com