pakistan’s

addressed, which will call for coordinated actions among like-minded states. These states would
need to adopt a conciliatory rather than a confrontational approach, even though within an overall
framework of coercion.
Other related measures. In addition, the United States should consider the following options to
limit the risk of nuclear proliferation from Pakistan:
• Address issues of Islamic radicalism and the challenges of anti-Islamic movements
• Beginning with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, work to resolve regional conflicts through
UN-led initiatives
• Develop a plan to rebuild regional economies and improve employment opportunities for the
youth population
• Advance the original goals of the Arab Spring by bringing about greater representational
government where possible through consensus and cooperation rather than imposition
from above
• Strengthen regional and subregional organizations in order to address pre-conflict challenges
as they arise
Conclusion
Pakistan is located in a critically dangerous region, continues to be dominated by the military,
and possesses a large and potentially vulnerable nuclear arsenal. As such, it poses an existential
threat to the world. This issue has been made even more complex by Islamic radicalization,
Pakistan’s use of jihad as a tool of aggression, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Numerous
ethnic and religious fault lines further complicate a turbulent situation where great disparity exists
in wealth between nations.
This volatile mix increases the possibility of nuclear proliferation from Pakistan, with all its
attendant consequences for both Asia and the Middle East, and poses a substantial challenge
to U.S. interests. Countermeasures will require Washington to engage in careful coalition
building and respond with firm, though humanitarian, policies backed up by coercive force.
In the final analysis, removing the potential for instability will require strong collective action
from all stakeholders.
166
NBR
SPECIAL REPORT u FEBRUARY 2016