A Crack in the Nuclear Shield
On June 6, 2025, the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, dropped a provocative analysis by its nuclear and security expert, Mark J. Massa. The piece, sharp as a tack, dissected Ukraine’s drone strikes on Russia’s nuclear bombers at a remote air base. It wasn’t just a report it was a grenade lobbed into the heart of a long-standing belief: that messing with a nation’s nuclear toys, even with conventional weapons, risks a fiery apocalypse. Massa’s take? That sacred “nuclear taboo” the unwritten rule against attacking nuclear assets might be more fragile than we thought. “Ukraine’s drone strikes,” Massa wrote, “were a blow to the widely held belief that non-nuclear military attacks on nuclear-relevant facilities or assets will lead automatically to uncontrollable nuclear escalation.”
This isn’t just academic chatter. It’s a signal of a seismic shift in how the U.S. strategic community views the rules of the game. For decades, American thinkers hammered home the idea that nuclear weapons aren’t just big guns they’re tools to keep the peace by scaring everyone stiff. The deal was simple: don’t poke the nuclear bear, and it won’t bite. That’s why the U.S. pushed hard for agreements like the 1988 pact between Pakistan and India, which banned attacks on each other’s nuclear sites. But now? The ground’s shifting, and it’s not just Ukraine’s drones stirring the pot.
The Taboo’s Fragile Roots
The nuclear taboo wasn’t born in a vacuum. After World War II, the U.S. worked overtime to convince the world that nuclear weapons were special too sacred for the battlefield, reserved for deterrence. The idea took root, shaping global norms. Attack an enemy’s nuclear sites? That was crossing a line, a one-way ticket to catastrophe. But Massa’s analysis flips this on its head. He argues that the fear of nuclear escalation from conventional attacks might be overblown. “Too many analysts,” he says, “overweight the risk that if a nuclear-armed country faces attacks on nuclear-relevant locations by conventional weapons, it’ll feel cornered into going nuclear.” Sounds convincing, right? But as Massa points out, there’s no hard evidence to back it up.
Take Russia’s response or lack thereof to Ukraine’s strikes. In September 2024, Russia tweaked its nuclear policy, lowering the bar for when it might go nuclear. Ukraine’s drone hits on Russian bomber bases seemed like the perfect trigger. Yet, no mushroom clouds. No Armageddon. “Russia may yet respond,” Massa notes, “but nuclear retaliation in Ukraine seems unlikely.” It’s a bold claim, and it’s got me wondering: are we overthinking the taboo, or is Massa whistling past the graveyard?
America’s Double Game
If Ukraine’s strikes raised eyebrows, the U.S.’s own actions in the 12-day Iran-Israel war of 2025 dropped jaws. Israel, never one to shy away from a fight, hit Iranian nuclear sites multiple times. Then, in a plot twist, the U.S. joined in, dropping bunker-buster bombs on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported no radiation leaks, and Iran claimed no harm done. But let’s not kid ourselves these weren’t love taps. The U.S., the self-appointed guardian of the nuclear taboo, was suddenly playing fast and loose with its own rules. Why? What changed?
The answer might lie in power dynamics. Iran isn’t a nuclear weapons state yet. It can’t hit back with nukes. Compare that to South Asia, where Pakistan and India both have nuclear arsenals and a history of staring each other down. When Indian forces struck Pakistan’s Nur Khan Air Base with BrahMos cruise missiles in 2025, the U.S. scrambled to cool things down. Nur Khan isn’t a nuclear site, but it’s close to Pakistan’s nuclear command structure, per international reports. Secretary of State Marco Rubio launched a diplomatic blitz to keep things from boiling over. President Biden even bragged that U.S. diplomacy stopped a nuclear war in South Asia.
So, why the double standard? Why bomb Iran’s nuclear sites but play peacemaker in South Asia? Simple: Iran can’t nuke anyone. Pakistan and India can. The U.S. seems to think it can break the taboo when the other side can’t hit back. But that’s a risky bet. As one analyst quipped, “You don’t get to rewrite the rules just because you’re the biggest kid on the block.”
South Asia’s Nuclear Tightrope
South Asia’s no stranger to nuclear brinkmanship. Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, Pakistan and India were constantly scheming to take out each other’s nuclear sites. In 1985, Pakistan’s Air Chief Marshal Muhammad Anwar Shamim dropped a bombshell at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad. He revealed that in 1984, Pakistan had plans to hit India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Trombay if India attacked Kahuta Nuclear Laboratory. Pakistan didn’t even have nukes yet, but Shamim wasn’t bluffing. He told the world Pakistan’s new F-16s courtesy of the U.S. were their “nuclear option minus the bomb.”
American scholar Dr. Robert Wirsing, who was in the room for Shamim’s speech, later wrote that the air chief made it crystal clear: those F-16s were picked for their ability to strike deep into India. In his 2010 memoir, Cutting Edge PAF, Shamim doubled down, saying India was warned through backchannels that an attack on Kahuta would mean Trombay goes up in flames. Kahuta, just three minutes from the Indian border, was a sitting duck. General Zia-ul-Haq asked Shamim how to protect it. His answer? Buy planes that could hit back hard. The U.S. delivered F-16s in 1983, and Shamim sent a note to Zia: India won’t dare touch Kahuta now.
Even India got the message. Shamim passed a warning through Pakistan’s science secretary, Munir Hussain, to his Indian counterpart. The response? “No brother, we know your capability, and we won’t try it.” By 1991, cooler heads prevailed, and both sides signed the Agreement on Non-Attack on Nuclear Facilities. But that was then. Now, with the U.S. breaking its own taboo, will others follow?
A Dangerous Precedent
The U.S.’s actions in Iran and its restraint in South Asia send a mixed message. If the nuclear taboo only applies when both sides can hit back, what’s to stop others from testing the waters? In South Asia, where India and Pakistan are locked in a perpetual standoff, the risks are sky-high. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has warned that future responses to terrorism won’t spare anyone terrorists or their backers. Pakistan’s General Sahir Shamshad Mirza fired back, saying any war would “cover the whole of India.” Tough talk, but during the Four-Day War in May 2025, both sides showed restraint. India avoided Pakistani military bases, and Pakistan stuck to border targets. Neither touched the other’s strategic assets.
But here’s where Massa’s thesis gets dicey. He argues that conventional attacks on nuclear sites won’t trigger a nuclear response. In South Asia, that’s a gamble. Both India and Pakistan have robust nuclear arsenals diverse, dispersed, and built to survive. A conventional strike might not cripple their deterrents, but it could push one side to the brink. As one South Asian strategist put it, “You don’t need to destroy a nuclear arsenal to start a nuclear war just make the other side feel like they’re about to lose it.”
The Road Ahead
So, where does this leave us? The nuclear taboo, once a cornerstone of global stability, is looking shaky. Ukraine’s drone strikes, America’s bombs in Iran, and the tense dance in South Asia all point to a world where the old rules don’t apply. If superpowers can hit nuclear sites without consequence, what’s stopping others? The U.S. might think it’s playing a smart game hitting where it’s safe, mediating where it’s not. But that’s a tightrope, and the fall could be catastrophic.
Massa’s analysis might be right in theory no automatic escalation from conventional attacks. But in practice, it’s a roll of the dice. South Asia’s history shows that even the threat of nuclear strikes can push nations to the edge. If the taboo is dead, we’re not just rewriting the rules we’re playing with fire. And as history reminds us, “When you play with fire, don’t be surprised when the whole house burns down.”
