India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
TT

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.

The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.

The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.

Here’s how — and why — India and Pakistan fight the way they do:

Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other “Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”

Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.

Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.

The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.

It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.

But the secrecy around their arsenals means that it's unclear if Pakistan or India can survive a first nuclear strike and retaliate, something called “second-strike capability.”

This capacity stops an opponent from attempting to win a nuclear war through a first strike by preventing aggression that could lead to nuclear escalation.

Without this capability, there is, in theory, nothing to stop one side from launching a warhead at the other.

Kashmir at the crux of the dispute India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.

The two archrivals have also fought two of their three wars over Kashmir — a disputed Himalayan region divided between the them where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”

In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.

A conventional military imbalance India is one of the biggest defense spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.

Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.

While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.

Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.

A pattern of escalation and defusing Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.

But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.

They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.

Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.

Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.

The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, US President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.

No desire for conquest, influence or resources Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.

Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.

Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.

Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.



Israeli Attack Exposed Iran's Military 'Vulnerability', Say Analysts

 A building stands damaged in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
A building stands damaged in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
TT

Israeli Attack Exposed Iran's Military 'Vulnerability', Say Analysts

 A building stands damaged in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
A building stands damaged in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters

Israel's strikes on archfoe on Iran Friday exposed severe weaknesses for Tehran that have hampered its ability to respond militarily, analysts said.

Israel said it hit 100 targets including Iranian nuclear and military sites in the attacks, killing senior figures, among them the armed forces' chief and top nuclear scientists.

Supreme leader Ali Khamenei warned Israel it faces a "bitter and painful" fate over the attacks, but analysts say the country's options are limited.

"This is an intelligence defeat of existential proportions for Iran," said Ali Fathollah-Nejad, director of the Berlin-based Center for Middle East and Global Order (CMEG) think tank.

"It exposes the vital vulnerability of the regime's military and security apparatus and its key infrastructures, including nuclear, as well as its top political and military leadership," he told AFP.

"All this is meant, inter alia, to cripple Tehran's command and counter-strike capacities."

The United States and other Western countries, along with Israel, accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon.

Tehran denies that, but has gradually broken away from its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal it struck with world powers, after the United States pulled out of it.

The landmark accord provided Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its atomic program, but it fell apart after President Donald Trump halted US participation in 2018, during his first term.

Western nations in recent days accused Tehran of deliberately escalating its nuclear program, despite several rounds of US-Iran talks for a new accord.

Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said Thursday it would "significantly" increase production of enriched uranium, after the UN's nuclear watchdog found Tehran in breach of its obligations.

Israel has previously carried out attacks in Iran, including against military targets in October last year.

But Friday's attacks were unprecedented.

"The Israel campaign is sweeping in scope and sophistication," said Ali Vaez, of the International Crisis Group.

"We may still only be in the early stages of a prolonged operation that continues to expand, disrupting Iran's ability to either formulate or execute a response."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned his country's military operation would "continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat".

Friday's strikes killed Iran's highest-ranking military officer, armed forces chief of staff Mohammad Bagheri, and the head of the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, Iranian media reported.

A senior advisor to Khamenei was also wounded, state television said.

Clement Therme, of the Sorbonne University, said that "to retaliate, the regime seems to be in a bind".

"Either it targets US bases in the region and jeopardizes its future, or it targets Israel, but we see that its military capabilities are limited," he said.

The Israeli military said Iran launched around 100 drones against it, but its air defenses intercepted "most" of them outside Israeli territory.

Israel, which relies on US diplomatic and military support, carried out the attack despite Trump's public urging for it to give time for diplomacy.

Trump's Middle East pointman Steve Witkoff had been set to hold a sixth round of talks with Iran on Sunday in Oman.

A Western diplomat earlier this year described Iran's economy as "cataclysmic", saying the country had "a gigantic need for the lifting of sanctions, reforms, a cleanup of the banking system, foreign investments".

Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the strikes were "designed to kill President Trump's chances of striking a deal to contain the Iranian nuclear program".

"It is highly unlikely that in these conditions, Iran will proceed with the Omani-mediated talks scheduled for Sunday," she added.

But, after the strikes, a US official said Washington still hoped the Sunday talks would go ahead.

Trump urged Iran to "make a deal, before there is nothing left", warning that otherwise there will be more "death and destruction".

Vaez warned the strategy may not work.

"Rather than prompt Iranian concessions it could also lead to a doubling down by Tehran," he said.

"Setbacks could lead Iran to reconstitute their operations with a more determined effort to obtain a nuclear deterrent."

OSZAR »