ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) —
India and Pakistan
They have engaged in three major wars since achieving independence from Britain in 1947. Additionally, numerous smaller battles and confrontations have occurred, including one taking place on a glacier recognized as the most frigid and highest battleground globally.
The latest escalation follows a
lethal firearm assault on travelers in India
holds Pakistan responsible for — however, Islamabad denies any involvement. Yet, they do not wage war as other nations do.
The dominant factor is their
nuclear weapons arsenal
, a distinctive method to prevent large-scale assaults and ensure that conflicts do not escalate out of control, even when the circumstances are worsening.
This is how—and why—India and Pakistan engage in conflict with each other:
Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other
Pakistan and India possess nuclear arsenals powerful enough to obliterate each other multiple times,” asserts security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, stationed in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital city. “These nuclear capabilities set up a situation of mutual assured destruction.
He notes that both nations have “intentionally expanded” the scale and reach of their arsenals to serve as a constant reminder to each other about the assurance of mutual annihilation.
Neither nation reveals details about their nuclear arsenals, yet both are believed to possess approximately 170 to 180 warheads designed for short-, long-, and medium-range use. Each has distinct methods for delivering these armaments to intended targets.
The armaments serve as a protective measure aimed at preventing and discouraging additional combat, since “neither party has the means to start another war or expects to gain anything from it,” according to Ali.
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.
In theory, without this capability, there would be nothing preventing one party from firing a warhead at the other.
Kashmir at the heart of the conflict
Since gaining their independence in 1947, India and Pakistan have both asserted claims over Kashmir, leading to persistent unrest and conflicts along their borders. The area is partitioned by a robustly fortified borderline, with each nation controlling different portions of Kashmir. This division has been a source of tension and conflict between the two countries for many years.
The two longtime enemies have engaged in two out of their three wars over Kashmir — a contested Himalayan area split between them, where militant groups oppose Indian control. Numerous Muslim Kashmiris back the insurgents’ objective of integrating the region, whether under Pakistani governance or as a separate nation.
Escalations at the borders along with militant assaults in Indian-administered Kashmir have led New Delhi to adopt a more stringent stance against Islamabad, charging Pakistan with “terrorist activities.”
During the recent clash, India retaliated against Pakistan by attacking locations they claimed were utilized by militants backed by Pakistan, connected to a shooting spree that occurred the previous month.
A conventional military imbalance
According to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, India stands as one of the top military spenders globally, allocating $74.4 billion in 2025. Additionally, it ranks among the leading nations importing weaponry worldwide.
Pakistan certainly isn’t underfunding its military, having spent $10 billion last year, yet it cannot compete with India’s substantial resources. Additionally, India boasts over twice as many active armed forces personnel compared to Pakistan.
Although India’s military historically prioritizes threats from Pakistan, it also faces concerns regarding its nuclear-armed neighbor, China, and growing worries about maritime security within the Indian Ocean. These elements are not part of Pakistan’s strategic considerations in shaping its defense strategy.
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.
However, both sides initiate operations within each other’s territories and airspace. Occasionally, these actions aim to disrupt check points, facilities, or locations believed to be utilized by militant groups.
These efforts are designed not only to embarrass or provoke leaders but also to compel them to yield to public pressure and react, potentially leading to misjudgment.
A lot of these operations begin near the Line of Control, which separates Kashmir between India and Pakistan. This area is mostly off-limits to both journalists and civilians, complicating efforts to confirm allegations of attacks or counterattacks independently.
These events trigger global concern due to the nuclear capacities of both nations, drawing focus again to India and Pakistan and ultimately to their conflicting assertions over Kashmir.
The apprehension over nuclear conflict has pushed these two nations to the forefront of discussions, vying against each other.
the papal conclave
, U.S. President
Donald Trump’s policies
, and
The trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs
in the news cycle.
No desire for conquest, influence or resources
The conflicts and minor clashes between Pakistan and India occur out of the public spotlight.
Attacks and counterattacks occur typically after midnight or before dawn, and except for the drone strikes on Thursdays, these events mainly happen outside of heavily populated city areas. This indicates that both nations refrain from causing substantial damage to each other’s civilian populations. The assaults are often referred to as precise or restricted operations.
Neither nation is driven by a desire to compete for natural resources. Pakistan possesses extensive mineral riches, yet India shows no interest in them. Despite significant ideological contrasts between Hindu-dominated India and Islamic-majority Pakistan, neither seeks dominance or sway over the other.
Apart from Kashmir, they show no interest in claiming each other’s territories or asserting dominance.
