Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

[Baibers_1260]

Shaheen 3 IS a very potent delivery platform for nuclear missiles, with an estimated High Speed of Mach 18, In No way can one air defence system stop that Iran managed to strike with almost impunity in Israel with their hypersonic missiles despite Israel having sophisticated David Sling/Aero Systems

Correct, Shaheen 3 is a potent delivery weapon.


We don't have that many Shaheen 3 units but if a few get through with 50kT nukes that should avenge the hundred million killed on our side by the pre-emptive attack ( link below ) .

Post in thread 'Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion'
https://defencepk.com/forums/thread...ews-updates-and-discussion.21640/post-1113249

 

[Strigon]

Unsure if this is already posted, but a very interesting take and never seen visuals (by me atleast) of May 2025 aerial battle.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Oscar]

I wouldn't doubt the will/support to use fight and use nukes.

After all, this is the same country where military offiers defected to Al Qaeda to declare war on the US, and hordes of youth volunteer to join various militant organizations in and out of the country.

You are still dodging the structural point. The problem is not whether some Pakistanis are fanatical enough to “fight and use nukes,” it is that the political, geographic, and command architecture around those nukes has already been shaped so their actual use window is vanishingly small and heavily surveilled by supposed partners.

Citing a few radical officers or jihadi‑curious youth does nothing to change the fact that external actors have baked in layers of control, early neutralization options, and post‑crisis bargaining pathways that make your hypothetical “we’ll just use them” bravado look like fantasy.

You are arguing from emotion and anecdotes while ignoring how vulnerable, compromised, and externally constrained the real nuclear posture is.

 

[flyingorca]

Im happy that my research is being used for exposing indian lies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Vkdindian1]

Just apply a simple thought experiment, imagine that you had not incurred losses, what would your narrative be then?

Actually the loss of Rafale took my side by complete surprise and create an unknown that is likely to take place in any conflict. You fire the first bullet and then events can be a complete surprise.

I assume that my people had assumed strike on 7th with no surprises for ourselves. After retaliation from Pakistan (which was certain), next step would have been taken based on the extent of that retaliation.

this is why a few of these going down is not just a psychological blow, it represents at least a partial doctrine failure,

I would call it a tactical surprise but not a doctrinal failure. A doctrine doesn’t revolve around a single platform but many of them.

This doesn't even serve the message you think it does, because it has alerted Pakistan and china to fix shortcomings,

Fixing for the next round is applicable to both and India is in a better position to do that. Apart from BVR edge, India has most other things that went good for them. Strong AD and our precision strike capability can’t be replicated so fast. The main reason for this is Pakistan’s precarious fiscal condition.

I do disagree with this concept of limited punitive strike to give a strong signal. Pakistan is not a minnow to be cowed down by such a strike. IF (if), India really thought it necessary then it has to take the hard decision of bigger military action. The previous one in 2019 did good for 6 years and wasn’t good enough.

Let’s also look at what Munir gained in all this. Before May 25, Munir was most reviled and hated person on this forum. Not even one person was standing in his support. Look at where he is now. One extra star, FM for life, CDF and complete control of Pakistan.

Who played dirty is only a speculation but when one looks at the outcome, it appears to be very obvious. Let me repeat, it is just a speculation and I have no intent to argue further on this point as it would turn into - my word against your’s.

My point still remains - Munir gained a lot over what I perceive to be not a great deployment of military power. And also that -Had Pakistan accepted a ceasefire on 7th, then that would have been huge narrative for Pakistan, while zero for India. But as they say hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[CSAW]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[kubotabx23]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Right - I'm pretty sure both nations can bring each other to their knees within hours, if not minutes, with a dose of radiation, but ideally, that's something we'd like to avoid, wouldn't we?

 

[flyingorca]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[kimjongun]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

A very basic question but how do you edit the vids..like your previous one..

 

[flyingorca]

A very basic question but how do you edit the vids..like your previous one..

Download "video maker" on android. I use the free version.

 

[r3alist]

Actually the loss of Rafale took my side by complete surprise and create an unknown that is likely to take place in any conflict. You fire the first bullet and then events can be a complete surprise.

This was not a conflict, this was meant to be an efficient operation, go in go out, under belief this was easy to

Because you took losses in the first hour it didn't even get a chance to become a conflict

would call it a tactical surprise but not a doctrinal failure. A doctrine doesn’t revolve around a single platform but many of the

Maybe calling it a doctrine is generous in itself, but the premise that the Rafael would be a game changer is gone, the idea you can come in and make punitive strikes is now too risky.

And that's why it had to go to nuclear signaling from India

 

[Baibers_1260]

You are still dodging the structural point. The problem is not whether some Pakistanis are fanatical enough to “fight and use nukes,” it is that the political, geographic, and command architecture around those nukes has already been shaped so their actual use window is vanishingly small and heavily surveilled by supposed partners.

@arjunk
I am not sure if continuing to fight a vicious enemy carrying out horrific atrocities on our population can be termed fanatical . The choice to fight on, even if its a losing battle is not ours to make, We can choose to submit and die in the largest holocaust known to human history or we can fight and perish with some cost to the enemy.

Citing a few radical officers or jihadi‑curious youth does nothing to change the fact that external actors have baked in layers of control, early neutralization options, and post‑crisis bargaining pathways that make your hypothetical “we’ll just use them” bravado look like fantasy.

I wouldn't term patriotic Pakistani officers fighting for their land as "radical" and youth resisting a vicious enemy occupation and de-population holocaust as "jihadi-curious ". Our enemy has ensured that this war has morphed into one that is no longer merely a territorial dispute but is essentially religious in nature. We never wanted it that way and had put our faith in negotiations or arbitration via secular international bodies, such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. Our enemy has never respected international treaties or the UN Charter and with its overwhelming military superiority wishes to occupy and annex our land and exterminate our people. In its desire to reconstruct an ancient religious empire it wants our land without its people.
Our choice is to go "quietly into the night " ( the famous quote from the movie Independence Day ) or to use Winston Churchill's famous phrase "fight on and never surrender ". There is nothing radical or jihadi about resistance to savagery.

You are arguing from emotion and anecdotes while ignoring how vulnerable, compromised, and externally constrained the real nuclear posture is.

A nation doesn't always succumb to foreign aggression and savagery simply because its armed forces or establishment have been compromised or defeated in conventional warfare. There are many examples of people of a nation fighting on with horrific losses . The people of China battled Japanese aggression, a civil war and foreign intervention simultaneously for decades before finally securing their land in 1949. The death toll has never been properly accounted for but is estimated to be around 30 million.

Coming to a nuclear scenario, a preemptive nuclear de-capitation strike by the enemy is far more likely than a last ditch response to an impending defeat by our nation.
The reasons are given in the post below.

Post in thread 'Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion'
https://defencepk.com/forums/thread...ews-updates-and-discussion.21640/post-1113249

 

[Yasser76]

I am not sure if continuing to fight a vicious enemy carrying out horrific atrocities on our population can be termed fanatical . The choice to fight on, even if its a losing battle is not ours to make, We can choose to submit and die in the largest holocaust known to human history or we can fight and perish with some cost to the enemy.


I wouldn't term patriotic Pakistani officers fighting for their land as "radical" and youth resisting a vicious enemy occupation and de-population holocaust as "jihadi-curious ". Our enemy has ensured that this war has morphed into one that is no longer merely a territorial dispute but is essentially religious in nature. We never wanted it that way and had put our faith in negotiations or arbitration via secular international bodies, such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. Our enemy has never respected international treaties or the UN Charter and with its overwhelming military superiority wishes to occupy and annex our land and exterminate our people. In its desire to reconstruct an ancient religious empire it wants our land without its people.
Our choice is to go "quietly into the night " ( the famous quote from the movie Independence Day ) or to use Winston Churchill's famous phrase "fight on and never surrender ". There is nothing radical or jihadi about resistance to savagery.

A nation doesn't always succumb to foreign aggression and savagery simply because its armed forces or establishment have been compromised or defeated in conventional warfare. There are many examples of people of a nation fighting on with horrific losses . The people of China battled Japanese aggression, a civil war and foreign intervention simultaneously for decades before finally securing their land in 1949. The death toll has never been properly estimated but is estimated to be around 30 million.

Coming to a nuclear scenario, a preemptive nuclear de-capitation strike by the enemy is far more likely than a last ditch response to an impending defeat by our nation.
The reasons are given in the post below.

Quote is from a Dylan Thomas poem, not the film, just an fyi.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

You are still dodging the structural point. The problem is not whether some Pakistanis are fanatical enough to “fight and use nukes,” it is that the political, geographic, and command architecture around those nukes has already been shaped so their actual use window is vanishingly small and heavily surveilled by supposed partners.

Citing a few radical officers or jihadi‑curious youth does nothing to change the fact that external actors have baked in layers of control, early neutralization options, and post‑crisis bargaining pathways that make your hypothetical “we’ll just use them” bravado look like fantasy.

You are arguing from emotion and anecdotes while ignoring how vulnerable, compromised, and externally constrained the real nuclear posture is.

sir, TBH, that is exactly why more domains of war were established!

and, no, I dont agree..

and, it has been done before!

 

[Baibers_1260]

Quote is from a Dylan Thomas poem, not the film, just an fyi.

Thanks for the correction My knowledge of English literature is poor