Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

Sam6536 said:
Major problems for Pakistan are:
1. Has nuclear detterance failed? What is the threshold of nuclear approach? Cruise missiles have hit Pakistan proper now. It's not just surgical strikes in the past.

In a full fledged war India due to its geography and size would have the strategic advantage and calling the nuclear bluff could be the decisive aspect.

Imagine something on the level of Operation Brasstacks by India.

2. What about IWT? Another major thing in this conflict was the abeyance of IWT by India.

3. Pakistan has been reactionary in this skirmish, so it's effectively India controlling the escalation ladder, what do you think about that?

4. India due to its large size/economy would have a easier time replenishing and rearming. Rafales are 4.5 gen fighters just like any other fighter, they're not the decisive card as they are hyped to me. It's just jingoism.

These are just some of my observations, i might be biased yeah but that's a given on both sides.
Click to expand...
1. Has nuclear detterance failed? What is the threshold of nuclear approach? Cruise missiles have hit Pakistan proper now. It's not just surgical strikes in the past.

Nuclear deterrence has a very high threshold and comes into play if Pakistan is on the verge of being destroyed. Indian attacks on Pakistan proved insignificant, even the million dollar cruise missiles only destroyed civilian mosques and bruised a few airbases.

What about IWT? Another major thing in this conflict was the abeyance of IWT by India.

Violating an international treaty on top of UN security council resolutions on Kashmir makes India the rogue actor. It will affect Indian agreements with other countries as well as they have seen India is unreliable.

3. Pakistan has been reactionary in this skirmish, so it's effectively India controlling the escalation ladder, what do you think about that?

India was threatening another "Op Brasstacks" after the first day. Pakistan defied both Indian threates and international diplomatic pressure from GCC/West to launch its retaliatory strikes on India, delivering a reality shock to Indian jingoists and causing India to seek a diplomatic offramp.

Pakistani establishment was a bit too "restrained" in my opinion and should have hit India harder after the first day rather than waiting for several days.

4. India due to its large size/economy would have a easier time replenishing and rearming. Rafales are 4.5 gen fighters just like any other fighter, they're not the decisive card as they are hyped to me. It's just jingoism.

Indian losses in the war with Pakistan were close to a billion dollars for its Air Force/AD alone. Pakistan did not suffer such magnitude of loss. An extended war with Pakistan means India will not be able to attract the manufacturing from China, an objective of the West and the reason for its investments in India.
 
Watandar said:
1. Has nuclear detterance failed? What is the threshold of nuclear approach? Cruise missiles have hit Pakistan proper now. It's not just surgical strikes in the past.

Nuclear deterrence has a very high threshold and comes into play if Pakistan is on the verge of being destroyed. Indian attacks on Pakistan proved insignificant, even the million dollar cruise missiles only destroyed civilian mosques and bruised a few airbases.

What about IWT? Another major thing in this conflict was the abeyance of IWT by India.

Violating an international treaty on top of UN security council resolutions on Kashmir makes India the rogue actor. It will affect Indian agreements with other countries as well as they have seen India is unreliable.

3. Pakistan has been reactionary in this skirmish, so it's effectively India controlling the escalation ladder, what do you think about that?

India was threatening another "Op Brasstacks" after the first day. Pakistan defied both Indian threates and international diplomatic pressure from GCC/West to launch its retaliatory strikes on India, delivering a reality shock to Indian jingoists and causing India to seek a diplomatic offramp.

Pakistani establishment was a bit too "restrained" in my opinion and should have hit India harder after the first day rather than waiting for several days.

4. India due to its large size/economy would have a easier time replenishing and rearming. Rafales are 4.5 gen fighters just like any other fighter, they're not the decisive card as they are hyped to me. It's just jingoism.

Indian losses in the war with Pakistan were close to a billion dollars for its Air Force/AD alone. Pakistan did not suffer such magnitude of loss. An extended war with Pakistan means India will not be able to attract the manufacturing from China, an objective of the West and the reason for its investments in India.
Click to expand...
My major concern was if neelum jehlum hydro was under attack, what did we do to reciprocate that action??
 
PakSword said:
Indians should only try to absorb this one fact that Indians utilized their best equipment: Rafales, S-400, Brahmos.

Pakistan mostly relied on JF-17s and Fatah missiles. The one time it used J-10C, 3 Rafales bit the dust. The one time it used C-400, the S400 got taken out.. In the next two days of utter humiliation, India resorted on using Brahmos. Every 2 of the 3 Brahmos fired by Indians were intercepted, contrary to the claims that no system can intercept the mighty Brahmos.

Imagine what was not used by Pakistan, Ghauri, Babur, Ghaznavi and Shaheen Series. Had we used any of them, Indians would've been crying on other things too.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Which ever way we look at these skirmishes, Pakistan came out on top.

The Indians were too high on international support for their cause. Apart from lip service no one came forward to take any side. Indians were left dumb struck when even Trump remained neutral. Many Hindutva media channels even scolded Trump and the world for not speaking for their cause.

It has been a thorough defeat for Hindustan not only militarily, but also diplomatically.
 
Sam6536 said:
So far I've seen a lot of misinfo and jingoistic comments from both sides.

But looking at the facts objectively it's clear that india lost 2-3 Jets with one likely being a Rafale. But India had the edge in drones and cruise missiles in this war.

I was in Jodhpur (it's close to the border) in uni when the skirmish was hot, we had 2-3 days of blackout post 12pm, we saw nothing though. I do remember reading about attacks on Jaisalmer though.

This was a short skirmish than a war, the strategic aim of India being detterance against Pakistani sponsored terrorist attacks in India.

Major problems for Pakistan are:
1. Has nuclear detterance failed? What is the threshold of nuclear approach? Cruise missiles have hit Pakistan proper now. It's not just surgical strikes in the past.

In a full fledged war India due to its geography and size would have the strategic advantage and calling the nuclear bluff could be the decisive aspect.

Imagine something on the level of Operation Brasstacks by India.

2. What about IWT? Another major thing in this conflict was the abeyance of IWT by India.

3. Pakistan has been reactionary in this skirmish, so it's effectively India controlling the escalation ladder, what do you think about that?

4. India due to its large size/economy would have a easier time replenishing and rearming. Rafales are 4.5 gen fighters just like any other fighter, they're not the decisive card as they are hyped to me. It's just jingoism.

These are just some of my observations, i might be biased yeah but that's a given on both sides.
Click to expand...
??
You have debire for four sites and reports of loss at least 5 sites

You can look up the dedicated thread

The debrie confirms mig29, su30, mirage and rafale with pilots death at atleast two loc

So where are you getting 2-3 ??
Sam6536 said:
Confirmed not speculated. Many of those posts and pictures were fake.
Click to expand...
None of the one that are posted in dedicated thread are fake. They are verified by audio or visual to be present
 
(just my opinion)

After an hour of deep thought over a cup of evening tea, I have concluded that something is terribly wrong with the IAF.

Due to the nature of "news," one must always propagate and adhere to a particular narrative by continuously updating the evidence and denying opposing claims.

I have not observed this happening, which leads me to conclude that there must be losses on the IAF side. However, I cannot calculate the number, as I lack correct and reliable information.

There are just more and more videos of IAF wreckages and how come they are mum about that!
 
Sam6536 said:
Beyond the first 2 days and strikes Airforce went out of the picture on both sides. The skirmish moved to drones and cruise missiles.

Air assets are too costly to move close to each other's AD. The drones meanwhile can get away easily.

In BVR engagements the one who locks in first has the advantage. PAF inflicted losses on IAF on the first day yes but we don't know what would've transpired in a larger scale war.

Quantity is a quality of its own, india does have the bigger arsenal. PAF has an admirable set of air assets but we can't judge overall performance on a day's engagement.

IAF is in dire need of newer and better aircraft though. Rafales are too low in number and the integration with local systems is not the best. The best way for IAF is to go for band aid purchase of a 5th gen fighter for now till our own AMCA is up and running (likely 10 more years).

Yes lessons were learnt on both sides. Most prominent thing about this war was the drone warfare on both sides.
Click to expand...
1000171493.jpg


No air or navy can operate without air power

Indian navy and Air Force was completely paralyzed forcing india to use nuclear armed missile as last resort

Its share luck that Pakistanis didnt reply with nuclear weapons

I think indian use of nuclear weapons systems made American really irked and angry forcing a ceasefire
 
Mighty_Dragon_Strike said:
(just my opinion)

After an hour of deep thought over a cup of evening tea, I have concluded that something is terribly wrong with the IAF.

Due to the nature of "news," one must always propagate and adhere to a particular narrative by continuously updating the evidence and denying opposing claims.

I have not observed this happening, which leads me to conclude that there must be losses on the IAF side. However, I cannot calculate the number, as I lack correct and reliable information.

There are just more and more videos of IAF wreckages and how come they are mum about that!
Click to expand...
14 probably upto 20.

Shell shocked
 
Abdul q said:
Desh darohi sarr… delete this post sare
Click to expand...
and BS 001 BS 022 and some other one was destroyed





No way only 3 rafale was destroyed. That indian woman pilot was shot down with rafale aswell but it was in J and K and not in pak airspace

Another fell down too in kashmir but we dont know the number

BS 001 and 022 are confirmed though basically

We literally almost killed there entire rafale fleet,confirmed damage via indian army in 4 airbases white flag on some Indian LOC posts and that Rajouri guy killed who was plotting terror in pakistan how did we lose?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 83 (members: 0, guests: 83)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top