Traditional national security more often than not is a zero-sum game. The wins are defined in absolute, unconditional terms. It is always black or white, with little space for grey. Each side aspires to defeat, if not annihilate, the other in case of an outbreak of hostilities. The need for preparedness often entails an arms race and, in order to reduce tensions, certain confidence-building measures are negotiated or undertaken unilaterally. Further, it aims to isolate the adversary in order to have a favourable balance of power. In addition to weaponry, technology and intelligence, the NSP aims to converge all elements of national power, something it has not coherently defined but that includes diplomacy, information, military and economic power to achieve optimal outcomes. The India-Pakistan rivalry is a classic case of adversarial ties in the traditional national security debate. During the Cold War, the US had lured the Soviet Union into an unaffordable weapon system upgradation race that would have not been possible without its economic prowess. Instead of letting the cold warriors play with fire, Henry Kissinger initiated a period of détente by building Soviet stakes in the international system as part of US national security policy for better predictability in the system. Non-traditional security threats do not seek to destroy or defeat the ‘enemy’, but aspire instead to engage with the adversary for mutual benefit. Collaborations are sought to devise win-win propositions as is seen these days in the present phase of entangled Sino-American diplomacy under the revised US national security policy. Information and knowledge are shared to devise collaborative or coordinated initiatives and actions. Constructive engagement is aspired to in order to build the stakes of the adversary in continuation of the system. Détente is used for reducing tension and strengthening economic resilience. The five areas mentioned in the NSP — population and migration, health, climate and water, food and gender security as well as the management of Indus basin and its tributaries, early warning systems for floods and drought, groundwater flows, polluted air and water bodies are all by nature transboundary, requiring transboundary negotiated mechanisms. It is obvious that several NTS threats are transnational and it is beyond Pakistan’s capacity to undertake unilateral remedial measures to counter them. National solutions are often inadequate, and would essentially require regional and multilateral cooperation. In other words, security can no longer be defined in terms of state security only as in state sovereignty or territorial integrity. Instead, it needs to be defined broadly to also include people and their quality of life, well-being and dignity at the individual, community and societal levels. Does it mean that traditional and non-traditional security paradigms are mutually exclusive or can they be pursued concurrently? It is clear that human empowerment and economic development cannot be attained without addressing NTS threats. Addressing these will add to national power and climate resilience. The ultimate objective of the NSP has to be seen as collectively building stakes in prosperity and human empowerment, fulfilment, and dignity. NTS threats can best be met by adopting a ‘whole of society,’ supported by ‘whole of government’, approach. One can only hope the NSP will help us move in that direction.