The Indo-Pacific is a hub of geostrategic importance, especially in economic and security terms, intensifying competition in the region among major powers. Additionally, most of the nine nuclear-armed countries, including China, France, India, North Korea, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, play major roles in the region. Understanding how these states might come to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly nuclear weapons, is essential for preventing catastrophe. Due to the highly competitive environment, the Indo-Pacific is prone to interactions associated with the classic security dilemma: Actions to improve a country’s security, even defensive ones, create insecurity in others and a corresponding arms buildup. A shifting regional power balance exacerbates such circumstances.
The dynamics are particularly worrisome because high-stakes objectives intersect with strategies backed by military and nuclear capabilities, heightening the risk of escalation.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and North Korea pose the most acute challenges to the U.S. and its Allies and partners, with Beijing as the greatest pacing challenge to U.S. interests in the region, analysts contend. The primary objectives of Japan, South Korea and the U.S. contrast with those of the CCP. For example, Japan’s Foreign Affairs Ministry states in its Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy that Tokyo desires to “ensure peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, through establishing a free and open order based on the shared values and principles such as the rule of law.”
Similarly, the South Korean strategy envisions a “free, peaceful and prosperous Indo-Pacific.” The U.S. objectives in the region include advancing a Free and Open Indo-Pacific; building connections within and beyond the region; driving regional prosperity; bolstering security; and building resilience to transnational threats. All are challenged by the CCP in some way. Beijing’s response to U.S. arms sales to self-governed Taiwan, which the CCP threatens to annex by force, illustrates the point. In September 2024, Beijing imposed sanctions against nine U.S. military-linked companies in response to such sales, Reuters reported. Beijing froze the firms’ assets in China and banned China-based entities from conducting transactions with them, intending to pressure the U.S. to halt arms support.
China also employs aggressive maritime tactics. For example, in October 2024, the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) conducted dual aircraft carrier exercises in the South China Sea to create a force-multiplier effect. The PLAN also conducted live combat drills, including air defense, anti-submarine and anti-ship operations, the South China Morning Post newspaper reported. Other tactics employed by CCP forces include ramming and firing water cannons at vessels operating lawfully within their respective nation’s internationally recognized maritime zones. China also uses so-called soft power, such as planning to expand its infrastructure investment in Laos to transform it into a hub for trade across Southeast Asia, the Morning Post reported. Projects — which often saddle other nations with large debts and threaten national sovereignty — include railways, airports and seaports that aim to boost trade access for China to key Southeast Asian markets.
In the Indo-Pacific, China provides economic assistance to foster relationships with nations whose primary focus is on domestic socioeconomic development, Kei Koga, an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, wrote in the March 2023 edition of a Pacific Forum publication. China encourages these nations to follow practices that diverge from international and U.S. standards, he explained.
Taiwan, with its proximity to China’s mainland and major shipping lanes in the East China and South China seas, is seen by the CCP leadership as a critical geostrategic possession. Control of Taiwan is a major near-term objective for Beijing. China is pursuing aggressive actions such as ramping up its military presence in and around the Taiwan Strait and conducting live-fire exercises. China is testing the limits of U.S. support to Taiwan and increasing the chance of crisis. Beijing has increasingly staged military drills encircling Taiwan. In April 2025, for example, the CCP launched war games with live-fire strikes in the East China Sea and blockade operations near crucial shipping lanes off Taiwan.
The U.S., however, opposes unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait by force or coercion and promotes freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific, viewing Chinese policy as expansionist, dangerous and a direct threat to U.S. interests.
North Korea also poses a serious threat. The authoritarian regime’s primary objective is to retain control of North Korean society and maintain power. Its leaders portray the outside world as hostile and the resulting policies are rooted in fear, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysts reported.
Pyongyang’s strategy is built upon deterrence and coercion, illustrated by its positioning of the military as the primary means to solve social, economic and political problems. Provocations such as frequent missile tests over the Sea of Japan, public displays of WMD capabilities and blatant threats of escalation clearly demonstrate the regime’s willingness to aggressively pursue its top objective of survival.
WMD Risk in the Region
The Indo-Pacific faces some of the highest risks of WMD use globally, according to analysts. Any clash between states threatens the stability of all others, creating a situation where a minor conflict could escalate and entangle actors whose survival may appear threatened. The risk of miscommunication or desperation in any high-stakes conflict could make nuclear use a possibility. William Leben, an analyst formerly at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), highlighted key factors that could contribute to a potential conflict with China.
First, nations place a high value on securing access and control over essential water routes, he wrote in a February 2024 ASPI publication. However, the doctrines and concepts behind naval platforms that control such domains have a propensity for escalation. Combined with the fact that striking first in a naval conflict has a significant tactical advantage, the incentive for escalation rises when critical interests such as maritime access are involved. Second, ambiguity surrounding China’s nuclear doctrine and capabilities creates an avenue for misinterpretation. In September 2024, the Chinese defense ministry announced it had launched an intercontinental ballistic missile into the Pacific Ocean. Analysts suggest the test was a warning to the U.S. and its regional Allies amid escalating tensions. Beijing’s demonstration of nonconventional capabilities underscores its increasing focus on nuclear deterrence. The integration of dual-use systems such as power technologies that overlap nuclear and conventional operations further heightens this risk.
In a high-intensity conflict, a nation could target another’s conventional missile forces but might unknowingly strike its nuclear assets instead. The recipient could interpret this as a deliberate attack on nuclear forces, or potentially as a prelude to a nuclear strike, Leben wrote. This “escalation through entanglement” is a dangerous potentiality, James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in an article for the International Security journal.
The potential for escalation from North Korea’s provocations also threatens peace and security. North Korea fired at least seven short-range ballistic missiles that flew about 400 kilometers before landing in waters near Japan’s exclusive economic zone, The Japan Times newspaper reported. South Korea’s military also confirmed Pyongyang launched several short-range missiles toward the Sea of Japan. Such moves can be interpreted as a deliberate and aggressive signal, and demonstrate a blatant disregard for other nations’ borders, exacerbating tensions.
Furthermore, North Korea’s limited diplomatic and economic leverage contributes to the risk of the leaders resorting to WMD use in conflict. North Korea’s regional strategy relies on deterrence and coercion, according to DIA analysts. They estimated that spending ranges from $7 billion to $11 billion and that 20% to 30% of the North’s gross domestic product is allocated to the military. Pyongyang also is presumed to have chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear programs, including the capability to engineer biological military products, according to the U.S. State Department. North Korea may possess several thousand metric tons of chemical warfare agents, including the capability to produce nerve, blister, blood and choking agents, DIA analysts reported. Its unsustainable strategy of allocating most of its resources to advancing WMD capabilities may lead North Korea to quickly run out of conventional options in a major regional conflict. In this scenario, desperation could prompt dictator Kim Jong Un to use catastrophic measures if he believes his regime is collapsing.
Policy Recommendations
The U.S. continues to advance democracy and freedom in the Indo-Pacific by building and maintaining strong alliances, promoting regional stability and encouraging dialogue. For example, in 2023, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. implemented a multiyear trilateral exercise plan and activated real-time information sharing about missile warnings. By engaging in diplomatic and military domains, the U.S. has positioned itself as a stabilizing influence. Moving forward, it should continue to build on these successes by prioritizing clear communication channels and transparency in nuclear postures and by investing in conflict prevention mechanisms to reduce the risk of escalation. Recommendations include strengthening crisis communication mechanisms and bolstering diplomatic and military cooperation with Allies. By continuing to demonstrate its commitments to defending Allies and partners and preserving a Free and Open Indo-Pacific, the U.S. can support regional security and efforts to minimize the risk of inadvertent or accidental escalation. This will lead to the best potential for long-term strategic gains.