POST WAR assessment of recent conflict.

[Ali_Baba]

During the war, all of pakistan airspace was empty from Civilian Airlines but only about 10 % of Airline traffic was affected on the opposite side.

Economically, pakistan was paralysed from the air whereas 90 % of the opposite side continued to operate as business as usual.

Attacking deeper and every corner of the enemy country would ensure similar paralysis of Civilian air traffic throughout the country ensuring that the Economic pain is felt at each and every corner of the opposite country.

Whatever, happened, Economically pakistan has more to loose unless, in actuality, 10 times more economic pain is inflicted on the enemy, that is felt at each and every corner, 3000 km at the farthest end , is felt.

A mere 200 km no fly zone is not hurting the enemy as the huge depth creates alternatives route that which can easily be activated and used without causing much pain / suffering economically.

Only in economic terms can you hurt the enemy more effectively and they will think 10 times how much economic battering can they take if they do any misadventure.

Toys can be replaced by newer toys but it will only delay the inevitable.

That is a by product of Pakistan geography unfortunately. I do think that Pakistan should have declared the sky over New Delhi a no-go area as it was "a combat zone". I do think Pakistan missed a trick there.

 

[j_hungary]

I understood you the first time, but I thought you were confused. Hence the request for clarity rather then jump right in to answer an assumption. It happens a lot here and I find it extremely annoying, I try not to repeat such habits.

Now, I'm certain you're confused. I'm sorry to say but you don't have a clue.

Do you know Pakistan's nuclear threshold? I don't think you do. It has one.
You've created an assumption that nuclear weapons are toys to be lobbed at every opportunity. Nuclear weapons are an insurance policy. Nuclear weapons exist within a formal framework. I strongly recommend you do a quick search on what Pakistan's nuclear threshold are. I'm not a good enough teacher so you will have to do that yourself, it won't take long.

But I'll provide an example.
you're holding a gun, you declare that you will use that gun only if anyone stabs me, you create clear guidelines.
Now I start to slap you, then punch you, then kick you. Then I start jumping up and down like a monkey telling you ha ha you can't do jack shyt, ignoring the fact that you have already declared your red lines.
You've declared your red lines because you are certain that if I slap, punch or kick you, you're fully capable of taking care of me. That in effect is the reality.

People are ignoring the reality, creating fantasies in their heads, and blowing hot air, it makes zero sense. In fact, it's idiotic.

Pakistan and India have been acting against each other for decades, neither has an upper hand.

Pakistan has given India a bloody nose last time and this time around.
In the previous 2019 episode. India came from Indian occupied Kashmir and went back to the same location.
Pakistan attacked following the same pattern, from whence it came. Pakistan attacked India from where India came.

In this episode, India attacked Pakistan across the country, crossing the international border.
Pakistan also attacked India across the country, crossing the international border.
It limited it's response up to and including Delhi in the north and Gujarat in the south.
Where is the shortcoming?
Where is the confusion?

Now you are saying next time India will go harder.
Next time Pakistan will also go harder.

You are saying it will lead to a full scale war.
I am telling you the Pakistani public wants a full scale war. The state has already declared if you want it, come and get it.
Which part of that do you not understand?

How is it that people such as yourself can hear India and create wild fantasies, and not listen to what Pakistan is saying or has done.
War is not a game, it is played within strategic realities and advantages, both parties operate under different circumstances, that's the only difference.

Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons, before the 1990s, it has fought each and every war with India under heavy sanctions. It took care of India, but I don't suppose you would know that.
This is the first time in the history of Pakistan, where Pakistan will not face restrictions with regards to supply of weapons.

So I say again, you're sorely confused. If you want to keep one ear and one eye open and completely ignore the other side, that's your choice. But that means your conclusions don't align with reality.

Now, does that make sense to you?

Okay, that all depends on one thing, that you can win a protracted war with India both with and without Chinese help and both directly and indirectly.

If you think this is the case, sure why not, but as I know for a fact, after being an astute student of warfare for at least 2 decades, this is not how I see it, and this is not how the mentor in the think tank sees it, and that's not how most of the military circle sees it.

I can probably go on in a indefinite and try to explain to you why this is not going to be the way it was, but then I probably would just going to be talking in circle. So instead I am just going to say this, if that is what you think, then I am okay with it, I would not comment on this further.

 

[j_hungary]

Hi,

You are living in a world of illusion---.

Pak military has smashed the myth of indian might to kingdom come.

It has also smashed the myth Of Taiwan's might---western nations with non 5th gen aircraft along witth with Australian might.

It won't be the Paks that will start the nuc war---it will be the indians trying to save themselves---.

I don't know what world you living in---but the indian military is refusing to fight---it is at the brink of a revolt / breakdown---.

India does not have an unlimited supply of surface to surface missiles---only for about 3 days in a full scale war or maybe 2 days---.

Pakistan has also similar number of days---after that it is all air force---.

This time---china is not going to be waiting---they will strike quick---they will strike hard---.

Sir---you need to worry about your country as well---. Today you are as vulnerable to the chinese long range strike capabilities---.

Is there an actual point in this?

Or is it some kind of ra-ra I am better than ye sort of argument?

Again, I look at stuff directly and without emotion, I don't support either side, even I supported Ukraine, I don't see them fighting a running war with Russia IN RUSSIA will lead to anything good. And that's just how the power of play comes to.

Again, if you want to further discuss how or what or in what way Pakistan can fight a war with India, I am more than welcome to discuss with you with facts, example and history and with my knowledge and expertise as an US Army O-3 with operation and planning experience, but not this Nationalistic Ra-Ra BS.

 

[Foxhound]

India has size, but Pakistan's military capabilities are closely matched​

By Annika Burgess with wires

• Topic:Armed Conflict

Sat 10 MaySaturday 10 May

India has a larger military footprint than Pakistan, but the rivals both have access to similar weapons. (Reuters: Adnan Abidi)
abc.net.au/news/indian-pakistan-military-capabilities-weapons-defences-compare/105265434
Link copied
Share
India and Pakistan have significantly upgraded their military capabilities since the South Asian neighbours faced off in a military confrontation in 2019.

Both sides have acquired more sophisticated aircraft, missiles and drones.

And they have stockpiles of nuclear warheads, but defence experts stress it is unlikely either side will consider using them.

But with both boasting powerful conventional weapons, even a limited conflict would carry high risks of escalation.

Pakistan is estimated to have about 700,000 personnel in its defence forces. (AP: Inter Services Public Relations)

Balance in power, not numbers​

India has been building up its military might, largely due to increased Western support.

Pakistan gets 81 per cent of its weapons from China, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The two countries are roughly balanced in terms of their military capabilities, but they differ substantially in numbers.

Military balance between India and Pakistan, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. (ABC News: Kylie Silvester)

India has the world's second-largest military behind China, according to World Factbook data.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that India's military expenditure in 2024 was $US86.1 billion ($133.7 billion), making it the fifth-largest military spender globally.

India's far greater resources would come into play over a longer period.

Tensions boil over​

Indian and Pakistan have fought three wars — in 1948, 1965 and 1971 — and clashed countless times, mostly over the Kashmir region which they both claim.

Kashmir is considered one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the world.


Pakistan's leader vowed his country would deliver a robust response after India launched missiles into Pakistani territory on Wednesday.

India said it was targeting "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan after 26 tourists were gunned down in India-controlled Kashmir.

The countries have since accused each other of launching missile and drone strikes.

A ceasefire agreement was reached on Saturday, but both sides have already accused each other of violations.

Figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies show India out-numbers Pakistan, but experts say their weapons capabilities are matched. (ABC News: Kylie Silvester)

The 2019 skirmish almost spiralled out of control, with multiple missile strikes threatened before US intervention calmed the situation down.

India-Pakistan ceasefire breaks down​

Photo shows Two soldiers walk down a path next to people taking photos on the banks of a river

India and Pakistan are blaming each other for violating a ceasefire just hours after the truce was reached on Saturday.

Muhammad Faisal, a South Asia security researcher based at the University of Technology Sydney, said a prolonged conflict today would likely involve more advanced weapons.

"Each side will think they are in a better position than last time," he said.

"It is only when we see actual combat that we will find out."

India's Western air power​

According to data from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, India has about 730 combat-capable aircraft.

India believed it was at a disadvantage in 2019 because it had to rely mainly on aging Russian jets.

It has since acquired 36 French-made Rafale fighter jets, a top Western aircraft, with more on order for its navy.


India has fleets of French Rafale fighter jets. (Reuters: Samuel Rajkumar/File)

"For India, there is the dilemma of how many air squadrons to commit to the Pakistan front, as it must also guard against China," Mr Faisal told the ABC.

The Pakistani prime minister's office said on Wednesday that five Indian fighter jets and drones had been shot down by Chinese-made J-10C jets, although this was not confirmed by India.

An anonymous US official told Reuters at least one Indian jet that was shot down was a French-made Rafale fighter aircraft.

The Indian embassy in Beijing called reports of fighter jets downed by Pakistan "disinformation".


Pakistan says it has shot down several Indian planes. (AP: Dar Yasin)

Pakistan could test China jets​

Pakistan's aerial fleet is much smaller, at about 450 aircraft.

Since 2022, Pakistan has acquired at least 20 Chinese-made J-10C jets, one of the country's most advanced fighter aircraft.

India's Rafales are armed with Meteor air-to-air missiles.

The Meteor's range has not been officially published.


The J-10 is equipped with the comparable PL-15 missile, a Pakistani security official told Reuters.

The Chinese plane and its PL-15 missiles have never been tested in combat.

The PL-15 missile is reported to have an estimated range of 200 km.

Indian strikes amp up Kashmir tensions​

Photo shows Five Indian Air Force soldiers sit and look out the open back of a truck.

India's strikes on Pakistan-controlled territory mark the worst fighting in six years between the two nuclear-armed neighbours and follow mounting tensions since a deadly militant assault in Kashmir, with the next steps likely to determine how serious things become from here.

Mr Faisal said fighter jets would likely continue to feature in any prolonged stand-off.

They allow each side to strike at long-range targets from their own territory.

"Jets allow you to send missiles simultaneously across the border and overwhelm air defences," he said.

"It could be a contest between Western and Chinese technology."

To plug the gaps in air defences exposed on both sides in the 2019 conflict, India secured Russia's battle-tested S-400, a mobile anti-aircraft missile system.

Pakistan obtained the HQ-9 from China, which is based on Russia's S-300, one notch down.

Size of India and Pakistan's navies, according to data from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. (ABC News: Kylie Silvester)

India's S-400 could also be integrated into its navy.

Mr Faisal said India had ambitions beyond defending itself against Pakistan.

He said it also had to consider risks from China, and was investing in its naval forces to have a footprint across the Indo-Pacific.

'High-intensity' ground fighting​

Border skirmishes between the two countries are common.

There have been reports of Indian and Pakistani troops engaging in post-to-post small arms firing along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir since last month's deadly terrorist attack in the area.


Indian soldiers on patrol in Kashmir. (Reuters: Adnan Abidi)

Sushant Singh, a lecturer at Yale University and a former Indian army officer, said fighting along the Line of Control last week had reached new levels.

He said there was "very high intensity of firing" using "a very different kind of weaponry … bigger weaponry, more powerful weaponry is being used by both sides," he told the ABC's Radio National Hour.


Indian soldiers patrol along the highly militarised Line of Control that divides Kashmir. (AP: Channi Anand)

Missiles and drones increasingly important​

Both India and Pakistan have been heavily investing in drones.

India has turned to Israel for combat-capable drones, receiving Heron MK2s — long-endurance drones used for strategic missions.

It also has US Predator drones on order.

According to the Stimson Center, a US-based think tank, one of the most notable developments in India's drone program has been the deployment of swarm drones.


A US MQ9 Predator drone is displayed at the Berlin Air Show. (AP: Michael Sohn)

Pakistan's drone fleet includes Turkey's advanced Bayraktar TB2 — used by Ukraine in its war with Russia — and the Akinci, according to the Pakistani security official.

It also has long-endurance, Chinese-made Wing Loong I and II drones.

Pakistan said it shot down 12 drones from India that violated its airspace on Thursday.

India sent Israeli Harop drones to multiple locations, including the two largest cities of Karachi and Lahore, Pakistan military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said.

India's defence ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

India also claimed to have neutralised Pakistani missile and drone strikes on military stations around the Kashmir region.


A Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drone. (Supplied: Ukrainian Ministry of Defence)

Mr Faisal said both countries had ballistic missiles that could cover each other's "whole territory".

"They both have developed missiles that are aimed at each other's nuclear facilities and command and control centres in case of war,"

he said.
Pakistan tested a surface-to-surface ballistic missile with a range of 450km last Saturday.

The country's military said it was to show its forces were ready to "safeguard national security against any aggression".


Pieces of Indian missiles lie on the compound of a mosque near Bahawalpur in Pakistan's Punjab province. (AP: Asim Tanveer)

Nuclear war highly unlikely​

Marcus Hellyer from Strategic Analysis Australia said any full-scale conflict or use of nuclear weapons would be highly unlikely.

"While it's not complete parity, you don't have this huge imbalance of power, so that kind of limits the options," he told the ABC.

"So there's really not a way to resolve the underlying issue of Jammu and Kashmir by force."

For now, analysts have played down the prospect of nuclear escalation. (Reuters: B Mathur )

The countries have built up nuclear arsenals over the years.

India has 172 warheads and Pakistan boasts 170, according to data from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

They are both signatories to a pact that bars them from attacking each other's nuclear facilities.

India also has a "no first use" policy. That means it will only retaliate with nuclear weapons if there is a nuclear attack on Indian forces or Indian territories.

Raji Pillai Rajagopalan from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said the Indian and Pakistani political leadership had limits.

They "cannot escalate it to a nuclear level", she told ABC News Breakfast.

"Even after the two countries went nuclear in 1998, they have engaged in multiple conflicts but have always been limited in nature," she said.

"Every single attack has shown that there are these kind of red lines that both sides draw."

Has Video Duration: 1 minute 33 seconds.
Watch 1m 33s

Pakistan flags nuclear capability as clashes continue with India

ABC/wires

Get a https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05...pabilities-weapons-defences-compare/105265434​

 

[Oracle]

And as an Indian you feel compelled to come here to get your fix of chitrol…

Are yar Pakistani hu ma
Kia ab question bhi na pochain k India ma bombing campaign ma koi jet tabah hua k nai?

 

[Goenitz]

On one hand, they say, next time we will not get blackmailed by N word again.. now they say, there was no nuclear threat.

https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/astonished-by-your-question-jaishankar-dismisses-nuclear-war-fears-between-india-pakistan-during-operation-sindoor/3858183/

 

[Foxhound]

Mixing, reality, hyperbole, fantasy and daydreaming can really produce an effect unmatched by any drug out there.

This accurately describes the Indian Media and the BJP. Totally oblivious to reality and concocting a false sense of invincibility and security - when in truth reality is something totally different.

The shambles of operation Sindoor was nothing more than to get a few extra votes for Modi/BJP - in actual action it did not deter Pakistan and as a consequence allowed Pakistan to hit mainland India (1st time since 1971).

Deterrence restored with a view that the tit for tat escalation ladder increases - I think Pakistan in a next encounter will go further deep into India, to convey that they are not invincible. Does India want to escalate to an all out war? If it does, then do expect dire consequences.

 

[Fasbre2]

Are yar Pakistani hu ma
Kia ab question bhi na pochain k India ma bombing campaign ma koi jet tabah hua k nai?

Oops apologies, replied to the wrong post.. it was aimed at @Vkdindian1 …

 

[Puncher]

It's the third time in 9 years that pakistan failed to deter India from a military action. First in 2016 surgical strike, 2019 Balakot strike and now operation Sindoor. Every time India escalated with higher force and kept the promise of retaliation.

Pakistan defended well in initial phase and but soon ran out of escalation options.

Given the stated Indian Government stance, India will come back again the next time something happens in India, keeping Pakistan always on the toes for the next escalation, which is going to be bigger and more lethal than this time.. may be navy will open with the first volley..

Biggest challenge that I see for Pakistan is it's lack of clarity on nuclear threshold, and India is testing it with each level of higher escalation. ..

Given the way both countries are performing, the next time India comes back, it's economy may be 15 to 20x of Pakistan with military resources in multiple higher factors... Trying to even respond to Indian military build up will severely drain Pakistani resources and resolves . ..

 

[Oracle]

It's the third time in 9 years that pakistan failed to deter India from a military action. First in 2016 surgical strike, 2019 Balakot strike and now operation Sindoor. Every time India escalated with higher force and kept the promise of retaliation.

Pakistan defended well in initial phase and but soon ran out of escalation options.

Given the stated Indian Government stance, India will come back again the next time something happens in India, keeping Pakistan always on the toes for the next escalation, which is going to be bigger and more lethal than this time.. may be navy will open with the first volley..

Biggest challenge that I see for Pakistan is it's lack of clarity on nuclear threshold, and India is testing it with each level of higher escalation. ..

Given the way both countries are performing, the next time India comes back, it's economy may be 15 to 20x of Pakistan with military resources in multiple higher factors... Trying to even respond to Indian military build up will severely drain Pakistani resources and resolves . ..

What?
2019 no demage was done in Pakistan so Pakistan didn't escalate much can't escalate to that level to kill Indians however downed 1 plane ( su30 story is not known)

2025- civilians+ arm personal got killed however Indian 6 jets lost in war. Their all Front air bases got bombed. That was chance Pakistan could strike kashmir however Pakistan didn't escalate as taking kashmir is not easy either. For both sides.

 

[Waz]

even I supported Ukraine, I don't see them fighting a running war with Russia IN RUSSIA will lead to anything good. And that's just how the power of play comes to.

I don't understand your point. So Ukraine isn't capable of fighting a protracted war with Russia in Russia, but can hold off a Russian military assault for an indefinite period. Am I correct in my understanding of what you posted?

 

[Puncher]

What?
2019 no demage was done in Pakistan so Pakistan didn't escalate much can't escalate to that level to kill Indians however downed 1 plane ( su30 story is not known)

2025- civilians+ arm personal got killed however Indian 6 jets lost in war. Their all Front air bases got bombed. That was chance Pakistan could strike kashmir however Pakistan didn't escalate as taking kashmir is not easy either. For both sides.

India is playing brinkmanship which used to be the forte of the Pakistanis. The next round may most probably involve preemptive strike on PAF or use of Indian Navy, and Pakistan will be left with the dilemma of how to respond to the attack..

India with it's multiple folds of greater resources can drain an already fragile Pakistan to it's brinks with it's brinkmanship behaviour and nobody will be able to do much about it..

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

So I say again, you're sorely confused. If you want to keep one ear and one eye open and completely ignore the other side, that's your choice. But that means your conclusions don't align with reality.

Now, does that make sense to you?

Very few from the Ehl-i Dunya would make sense out of it for seeing is believing for them....

By the by, the Bharati folks can't wage a long war for, historically speaking, they can't take tactical losses for long. Even in the last episode, after losing Rafales and S-400s within a span of 1 hrs and 3.5 hrs, respectively, they opted to quit it out....

If a non-contact industrial scale robotic warfare (see the industrial scale slaughter in the Ukranian-Russian front), some semblances of it being shown by the Pak side, is put on a grand scale inside the IIOK and along the IB, Bharat would quit at a record time....

 

[j_hungary]

I don't understand your point. So Ukraine isn't capable of fighting a protracted war with Russia in Russia, but can hold off a Russian military assault for an indefinite period. Am I correct in my understanding of what you posted?

protracted war means an indefinite escalation.

If, and that's a big if, Russia can escalate or prolong this war in a full capacity for the next 10, 15 or 20 years, there are no way Ukraine would have able to win this war. Again, the question here is whether or not Russia can. But in military science, theoretically a bigger country would have a better regeneration rate and better attrition rate, so they deteriorate slower than smaller country, that make sense because you have bigger economic capability as a bigger country, and you have a bigger population pool as a bigger country, so to answer your question in bold? No, because Ukraine is smaller, and if the war drags on indefinitely, then by the military science. There are no way Ukraine will survive endless Russian assault if this war is drag on indefinitely. For example, it's estimated Russia will need 6 years or so to completely capture Donbas (about 8000 square kilometers), that mean in 800 years' time, if the process remains the same, Russia can theoretically roll up the other 654,000 square kilometers of Ukraine and win the war that way, now the question is, will Russia still be there in 800 years time to win this war? If they are, they will.

The problem is, it's not the same war we are talking about in Ukraine, Ukraine is a defensive war, the one goal, one single goal of a defensive war is "You are not losing until you lose your garrison" which mean for Russia to win this war, they would need to take 100% of Ukraine, for Ukraine to lose this war, they would need to lose 100% of Ukraine. Which mean that comes a balance, how long and how far can you drag on, whether or not this is pre or post culminative point (High water mark of your war) before you can establish the maximized result? Because in reality, war is not science, it's a physical experiment. Because if war are governed by statistic and mathematics, like most military scientist do, then America Civil War will have a different outcome, UK's Falkland war will have a different outcome.

The bold part of the previous paragraph is the reason why I raise this post. Can Pakistan win a running war with India? Sure, but you need to have some X factors to balance that equation, otherwise if nothing changes and we applies the military science point of view than there are only 2 ways a India-Pakistan war can go. Either it follows the military science doctrine and India will a war by fighting on indefinitely, or Pakistan use their nuke and eliminate both countries. That's the point of my argument.

 

[Waz]

protracted war means an indefinite escalation.

If, and that's a big if, Russia can escalate or prolong this war in a full capacity for the next 10, 15 or 20 years, there are no way Ukraine would have able to win this war. Again, the question here is whether or not Russia can. But in military science, theoretically a bigger country would have a better regeneration rate and better attrition rate, so they deteriorate slower than smaller country, that make sense because you have bigger economic capability as a bigger country, and you have a bigger population pool as a bigger country, so to answer your question in bold? No, because Ukraine is smaller, and if the war drags on indefinitely, then by the military science. There are no way Ukraine will survive endless Russian assault if this war is drag on indefinitely. For example, it's estimated Russia will need 6 years or so to completely capture Donbas (about 8000 square kilometers), that mean in 80 years' time, if the process remains the same, Russia can theoretically roll up the other 654,000 square kilometers of Ukraine and win the war that way, now the question is, will Russia still be there in 80 years time to win this war? If they are, they will.

The problem is, it's not the same war we are talking about in Ukraine, Ukraine is a defensive war, the one goal, one single goal of a defensive war is "You are not losing until you lose your garrison" which mean for Russia to win this war, they would need to take 100% of Ukraine, for Ukraine to lose this war, they would need to lose 100% of Ukraine. Which mean that comes a balance, how long and how far can you drag on, whether or not this is pre or post culminative point (High water mark of your war) before you can establish the maximized result? Because in reality, war is not science, it's a physical experiment. Because if war are governed by statistic and mathematics, like most military scientist do, then America Civil War will have a different outcome, UK's Falkland war will have a different outcome.

I'd generally agree with this premise. However if the enemy is able to win crucial key battles, knocking out significant military forces, then I think it would be an even playing field. Or there's the other option of wearing an enemy down i.e. the losses are too great to carry on with their aims.