India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from British India 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 — 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 three wars over Kashmir, where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani governance 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 defence 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, U.S. 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.

What is next for nuclear-armed India and Pakistan?

In launching military strikes on nine sites in Pakistan, India has “ignited an inferno in the region,” and is responsible for any further escalation, Islamabad has said.

This rhetoric has the world on edge, with fears growing that an all out war could erupt between nuclear-armed adversaries.

Shortly after the overnight missile strikes, Delhi declared that “justice had been done”. But that does not mean the fighting will stop.

Will Pakistan retaliate?

Pakistan has called the strikes an act of war and has authorised its armed forces to conduct retaliatory measures.

What is happening across the neighbours’ contested frontier might look like the start of an all-out conflict, but it is not yet, and the two powers will be under intense pressure to make sure it does not escalate to get there.

In their decades of antagonism, India and Pakistan have been here before and managed to step back from the brink.

Credit: Social Media

Allies of the two sides, including America, the UK, and China are urgently intervening to try to ensure that they back down once again.

Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, told Parliament that Britain was “encouraging dialogue” as well as “de-escalation” in the worst violence between the countries in two decades that has left at least 38 dead.

To do that, the two sides must somehow be able to make claims that they have acted robustly to defend their nations, and their honours have been satisfied.

Fortunately, beyond the bellicose nationalist rhetoric of social media and rolling news coverage, each side also has experienced civilian and military figures who have years of dealing with deterrence and escalation, and trying to manage their confrontations.

For all the martial fervour from India, even as it launched the strikes, Delhi has been careful in its language and in the choice of targets.

India stressed that “no Pakistani military facilities have been targeted” and that it had instead “demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution”.

Delhi told the world, and Islamabad, that its strikes had been “focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”.

The problem is that once missiles and planes begin flying and casualties mount, events can take on a momentum of their own and quickly spiral out of control.

Both nations have large militaries and nuclear arms. In recent years, Pakistan has grown close to China and India has grown closer to America, though this is not a proxy conflict.

Worried diplomats will hope that a similar flare-up six years ago may form the template for how the current tension may be dissipated.

In early 2019, the Pulwama bombing killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel. Delhi responded with air strikes against what it said was a terrorist training camp in Balakot, a claim rejected by Islamabad, which said it was uninhabited forest.

The following day Pakistan launched a retaliatory raid and an Indian air force pilot was shot down in a dogfight and taken prisoner.

Despite the escalation, after that clash and the handover of the captured pilot, the enemies were able to ease tensions.

Each nation felt able to tell its population that it had come out on top.

Today, each country’s leadership and watching diplomats will be hoping that such an off-ramp remains the most likely outcome now.

Once again, the region finds itself walking a difficult tightrope between escalation and restraint.