--- title: "What if India and Pakistan Went to War Again?" description: "To many, a war between India and Pakistan is not just a hypothetical — some view it as inevitable. Although the two countries have only existed independently for just over 75 years, they have already gone to war with each other on four separate occasions, and that does not even include the many smaller border skirmishes that have resulted in the deaths of thousands. Because both nations have grown and advanced considerably in the last few decades, if a modern-day war were to erupt between India and Pakistan, it now has the potential to be one of the most devastating conflicts in all of human history. What could possibly spark the next full-scale Indo-Pakistani conflict, and just how destructive might such a war be?\n\n## Key Takeaways\n- India and Pakistan have fought four wars since 1947, three over Kashmir and one over the independence of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), with the Kargil War of 1999 being the first between two nuclear-armed states.\n- The 1947 partition of British India triggered one of history's worst refugee crises, with over 10 million migrants and more than a million killed in communal violence.\n- The 2008 Mumbai Attacks by Lashkar-e-Taiba brought both nations to the brink of nuclear war, with both air forces on maximum readiness and leaders in contact with nuclear command teams.\n- India holds significant conventional military advantages: 650 fighter jets versus 450, over 1,000 T-90 tanks, 1.4 million active personnel, 10 destroyers, and the only aircraft carrier in the rivalry.\n- India's Cold Start doctrine keeps forces near the border for an immediate spearhead advance into Pakistan before nuclear escalation or international intervention can occur.\n- A Rutgers University study estimated that even a small-scale Indo-Pakistani nuclear exchange would instantly kill 125 million people and lead to nearly 2 billion deaths from disrupted food production.\n\n## Partition and the Roots of Conflict in British India\n\nThe modern conflicts of this region began right after World War 2, and, like so many other conflicts, it all stemmed straight from the British Empire. At that point in time, most of South Asia was regarded as a single territory — British India, an absolutely massive colony under the administration of the British Raj. During the war, Britain had agreed to give British India its independence once the war was over, and when the time came, they were ready to follow through with their promise. But granting independence was much easier said than done. The real issue was that British India was not just comprised of one nation or people that had been colonized — in fact, there were dozens of ethnicities and languages throughout the region, and the British feared that this could lead to infighting and general chaos if the area was left on its own overnight. While working through possible solutions, it became clear that the biggest issue facing an independent British India was not language or culture, but religious tension, specifically between the large populations of Hindus and Muslims. The consensus among the minority Muslims was that without British rule, they would be the subject of discrimination at the hands of the majority Hindus, and the opinion of many Hindus was that the Muslims would riot and revolt in an attempt to gain power where they could. The fear that this would all spiral into an outright civil war was all too real, especially since this tension had already been building between the groups for decades. A civil war would be bad news — not just for the hundreds of millions of people involved, but also for Britain, who was banking on becoming an ally with their strong former colony. Finally, a solution was brought to the table — partition. The plan was to divide the territory into two separate regions, giving Muslims and Hindus their own independent nations. This plan was implemented in the summer of 1947, having been launched a year earlier than originally anticipated, and made some major changes to the region. Now there were two separate domains: the Dominion of India for the Hindus and the Dominion of Pakistan for the Muslims, split into two sections, West and East Pakistan. The border was drawn up on what was called the Radcliffe Line, carved into maps where the British thought would be best — which was not very good at all. The first issue arose immediately: what were you supposed to do if you woke up on the morning of partition and found yourself in the wrong dominion? This was all part of the Mountbatten Plan — draw a line where it best separates the religions, and anyone left behind is free to move across the border. This might have gone more smoothly if there were just a few outliers left on each side of the line, but there were millions. As they all began migrating across the border, chaos erupted, and violence on an unprecedented scale was unleashed.\n\n## Four Wars in 75 Years: From Kashmir to Kargil\n\nViolence against men, women, and children, perpetrated by both sides, so suddenly and so intensely that no outside force had the time or the ability to put an end to it. By the end, more than a million people were killed in the madness. Estimates place the total number of migrants at well over 10 million, with some going even higher than 20 million. That number can seem underwhelming compared to more than a billion people living in India today, but 20 million migrants would be the equivalent of the combined populations of Norway, Sweden, and Finland. These huge numbers have earned the partition of India a place among the worst refugee crises in all of history. The worst part was that the partition did not even really solve the issue. Just a few months later, in autumn 1947, the new dominions of India and Pakistan went to war for the first time, fighting for control of the disputed province of Kashmir and Jammu. This was the First Kashmir War, which resulted in nearly 30,000 casualties and a \"line of control,\" or LoC, roughly dividing the disputed region. But this was far from a permanent solution, and by 1965 the Second Kashmir War was underway, this time turning into a massive conflict, leading to the destruction of hundreds of tanks, dozens of airplanes, and tens of thousands of casualties. Despite both sides claiming victory, by the time the UN ceasefire was implemented, there were no territorial changes. The third war between the two powers came just six years later, in 1971, when East Pakistan declared its independence from the West, becoming the country of Bangladesh. Pakistan launched a series of preemptive air strikes on India once they learned that the Indian military was assisting the revolution in East Pakistan, and India responded in full force, with combat on land, in the air, and at sea. Once again, the fighting resulted in thousands more casualties before it was over, though this war is unique in the fact that Pakistan ordered an official surrender. Skirmishes along the border continued nearly every year for the next couple of decades, until in 1999 Pakistani troops crossed the line of control disguised as Kashmiri insurgents, sparking yet another conflict — the Kargil War. Only a few thousand casualties emerged from the battle, but this was perhaps the scariest war of them all, as it could now be described not only as a war between India and Pakistan, but as a war between two nuclear powers. The stakes had never been higher, and perhaps that is why each country was a bit hesitant to go all out. But that hesitancy has been steadily eroding in the decades since, and with every passing year, there are more chances for the next big war to light the fuse.\n\n## The Spark: Terror Attacks, Kashmir, and Water Disputes\n\nThe disputed province of Kashmir is still the likely culprit for the next war, though it is not the only one. Throughout the 21st century, there have been several terror attacks carried out on Indian soil, many of which India has traced back to Pakistani intelligence operations, though Pakistan denies this. One such attack, a bombing of Indian Parliament in 2001, led to both sides piling up tens of thousands of troops in Kashmir, ready to attack at a moment's notice. The world held its breath as peace talks were brokered, and, fortunately, each side agreed to calm the situation and withdraw their armies, but not before a few hundred were killed in minor skirmishes. Another standoff happened a few years later, after the 2008 Mumbai Attacks. These were a series of bombings that took the lives of 175 and wounded more than 300 others. After the lone surviving attacker revealed that the group responsible was a Pakistani Islamist terror group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, India once again accused Pakistani intelligence of funding the operation and began amassing forces in Kashmir. Pakistan responded similarly, and the two armies were staring each other in the eyes once again. This time, the brink of war was as close as ever, with some US senators even calling for a joint US-Indian invasion of Pakistan as part of the ongoing War on Terror. Both air forces were placed on maximum readiness and deployed to frontline air bases, tens of thousands of troops were near the frontline, and both leaders were in constant communication with their nuclear command teams. Private intelligence firm Stratfor even noted that Pakistan had already prepared detailed forward operations and was merely awaiting the green light, and even the terrorist organization responsible for the attacks claimed that they had hundreds of operators with bomb vests ready at a moment's notice. Once again, the situation was eventually defused, but it showed just how easily the tension can snap. In the event of a terror attack similar in scale to the 2008 Mumbai Attacks, India could very well respond with a show of military force that could quickly turn into all-out war. The next most likely cause of war would be either side encroaching once again in Kashmir, but this is more complicated than before, as China also administers about 30% of the disputed region. If either side pushed over the line of control or funded insurgencies on the other side, they would have to be careful not to awake the dragon sleeping next door. The conflict in Kashmir seems like it is only going to get worse, as there are increasing reports that the Taliban plans to arm and fund Islamist militants in the disputed state. Kashmir is also responsible for another disagreement — water. Various river tributaries are claimed by both sides, in a debate that should have been settled by the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, which allocated water equally between each nation, but Pakistan alleges that India has broken this treaty with its recent dam construction. The final reason for a possible conflict could come as a result of a civil war in Pakistan. Pakistan is in an incredibly unstable political state, with its prime minister receiving a no-confidence vote in April of 2022 and surviving an assassination attempt later that year. This instability is fueled by rampant terrorism, sky-high inflation, and systemic corruption among military leaders. There is a big fear that if Pakistan collapses, it will turn into a \"nuclear Somalia.\" Something of this magnitude could easily see an Indian military incursion to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal before it falls into the wrong hands and is either used or sold to a foreign buyer such as Iran.\n\n## Military Balance: India's Advantages on Land, Sea, and Air\n\nIf a war breaks out in the near future, which side will have the advantage? India fields around 650 fighter jets, while Pakistan has around 450. But it is not just the numbers that make a difference — it is the quality of the aircraft. India has more than 200 Su-30s, an exceptional Soviet-designed multirole fighter, as well as more than a hundred MiG-21s and a few dozen French-made Rafales. Pakistan, on the other hand, will be relying on just a few dozen American-made F-16s, which, while highly capable aircraft, are not modernized in the Pakistani Air Force. The bulk of Pakistan's Air Force is made up of Chinese fighter jets, such as JF-17s and F-7s, which are going to have a tough time competing with the Indian Air Force. India also has the upper hand when it comes to transport aircraft, crucially including hundreds of transport helicopters, which will allow for men and supplies to be moved through the highly mountainous terrain that separates the two countries. On the ground, India's tank inventory is mainly comprised of old Soviet T-72s, but in the last decade or so has seen a huge influx of T-90 imports, a newer Russian tank. India has over a thousand T-90s and has already placed orders for a few hundred more, as well as upgrades for them. Pakistan is fairly outmatched in the tank realm, fielding Chinese refits of old Soviet designs and a few hundred T-80s purchased from Ukraine in the 1990s. This lack of firepower means that Pakistani armor will have to stay on the defense, as facing the Indian tanks in direct combat risks losing hundreds. As far as active personnel go, India once again takes the lead, with 1.4 million — making it the largest volunteer army on the planet — whereas Pakistan has around 600,000 active personnel. India also outguns Pakistan in terms of towed artillery, multiple rocket launch systems, and overall defense budget. India's navy is far more powerful than Pakistan's, with 10 destroyers compared to zero, and India being the only one with an aircraft carrier. At the end of the day, India has the clear advantage, but this does not mean that Pakistan would not put up a fierce fight, and if India plays its cards wrong, things could go south very quickly.\n\n## Cold Start Doctrine and the Catastrophic Nuclear Calculus\n\nAfter the 2008 Mumbai Attacks, the Indian military was unable to respond militarily to Pakistan, despite many wishing for such a response. By the time India gathered their forces on the border, Pakistan had already assumed defensive positions, and India would have taken significant casualties if they had pushed on. This is why, following the standoff, India rewrote its military doctrine for a war with Pakistan. Currently, their known strategy is called \"Cold Start,\" which involves keeping a significant force near the border at all times. If a similar terror attack happens again, India is able to immediately respond with a spearhead advance into Pakistan. The idea is to slice so quickly and so deeply into Pakistani territory that strategic goals can be achieved before the international community steps in to call for a ceasefire, and before Pakistan has a chance to use tactical nuclear weapons. Studies have put various estimates out for a direct conflict between the two powers, with one to two million casualties being the bare minimum if each country fully commits their armed forces, with many of these casualties coming from missile strikes in densely populated Indian cities. But simply due to the fact that both countries are nuclear powers, a war here has the potential to kill not just millions, but billions. A study at Rutgers University found that even a small-scale nuclear exchange would instantly kill 125 million people, and, in the weeks afterward, lead to the deaths of nearly 2 billion. The researchers arrived at these conclusions by estimating the effects on crop yields, fresh water supplies, climate, and animal products. Because this region of the world is responsible for so much of the world's food production — especially concerning rice, cereals, and sugar — hunger would spread through the supply chain like a wildfire. This would have absolutely devastating effects on countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sri Lanka, who heavily rely on India to feed their population, while also disrupting the global food market on an unprecedented level. Another effect of a nuclear war would be the inevitable nuclear winter. If the two countries detonated a significant portion of their warheads, it would release an estimated 37 million tons of soot into the atmosphere, which could plunge global temperatures by several degrees Celsius, to temperatures potentially not experienced since the end of the last ice age. When all is said and done, another Indo-Pakistani war is unlikely to have a victor now that nuclear weapons are on the table, and perhaps that is why it likely will not happen soon. Unless India is confident that it can steamroll its neighbor before things escalate, the situation is likely going to remain a tense standoff until the various disputes are resolved — which does not seem to be happening anytime soon.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### How many times have India and Pakistan gone to war, and over what?\n\nIndia and Pakistan have fought four wars since 1947. The First and Second Kashmir Wars, in 1947 and 1965, were both fought over the disputed province of Kashmir and Jammu. The 1971 war was triggered when Pakistan launched preemptive air strikes on India after New Delhi began supporting East Pakistan's independence movement, ending in Pakistan's formal surrender and the creation of Bangladesh. The 1999 Kargil War, the first between two nuclear-armed states, began when Pakistani troops crossed the line of control disguised as Kashmiri insurgents.\n\n### What makes the 2008 Mumbai Attacks such a significant flashpoint in Indo-Pakistani tensions?\n\nThe 2008 Mumbai bombings killed 175 people and wounded more than 300. The lone surviving attacker identified the perpetrators as Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani Islamist group, prompting India to accuse Pakistani intelligence of funding the operation. Both air forces were placed on maximum readiness, tens of thousands of troops moved to frontline positions, and both leaders entered constant communication with their nuclear command teams. Private intelligence firm Stratfor noted Pakistan had already prepared forward operations and awaited only a green light.\n\n### What conventional military advantages does India hold over Pakistan?\n\nIndia fields around 650 fighter jets versus Pakistan's 450, including superior aircraft like over 200 Su-30s and dozens of French-made Rafales compared to Pakistan's aging F-16s and Chinese jets. India has over 1,000 T-90 tanks versus Pakistan's outdated Chinese refits and Cold War-era T-80s. India also has 1.4 million active personnel against Pakistan's 600,000, a far larger navy with 10 destroyers and the region's only aircraft carrier, and a higher defense budget.\n\n### What is India's Cold Start doctrine, and why was it developed?\n\nCold Start was India's strategic response to its inability to react militarily after the 2008 Mumbai Attacks, when Pakistan had already assumed defensive positions by the time Indian forces mobilized. The doctrine involves keeping a significant force near the border at all times so India can launch an immediate spearhead advance into Pakistani territory should a similar attack occur. The goal is to achieve strategic objectives before the international community calls for a ceasefire or Pakistan has time to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.\n\n### How many people could die in an Indo-Pakistani nuclear exchange?\n\nA Rutgers University study estimated that even a small-scale nuclear exchange would instantly kill 125 million people and, in the following weeks, lead to the deaths of nearly 2 billion more. The researchers attributed those figures to the devastating effects on crop yields, fresh water supplies, and climate. Because India and Pakistan together produce a huge share of global rice, cereals, and sugar, the disruption to the food supply chain would spread hunger to countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sri Lanka that depend heavily on the region's agricultural output.\n\n## Related Coverage\n- [India’s Water Gambit: How the Indus Treaty Could Starve Pakistan](https://warfronts-prod.fulcrum-labs.workers.dev/geopolitics/indias-water-gambit-indus-treaty-starve-pakistan)\n- [Is a Decades-Long Turkish War Finally Over? Abdullah Öcalan Calls for Peace.](https://warfronts.pub/conflicts/is-a-decades-long-turkish-war-finally-over-abdullah-calan-calls-for-peace)\n- [Myanmar’s Civil War: Why Can’t Any Side Break Through?](https://warfronts.pub/conflicts/myanmars-civil-war-why-cant-any-side-break-through)\n- [War is Coming. Europe isn't Ready.](https://warfronts.pub/conflicts/war-is-coming-europe-isnt-ready)\n- [Sudan's Forgotten War: Why the World Looks Away](https://warfronts.pub/conflicts/sudans-forgotten-war)\n\n" url: https://warfronts.pub/article/what-if-india-pakistan-went-to-war-again.md canonical: https://warfronts.pub/article/what-if-india-pakistan-went-to-war-again datePublished: 2026-03-04 dateModified: 2026-03-04 author: - name: Simon Whistler url: https://warfronts.pub/author/simon-whistler publisher: Warfronts image: "https://media.warfronts.pub/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,height=900,fit=cover,quality=80,format=auto/articles/7imfKj1zc5I/hero.jpg" type: NewsArticle contentHash: 74991b940ad6c4c49f7d396cbeb8925e7bc02ea71fde8f619cdee67db8d4d7d3 tokens: 5126 summaryUrl: https://warfronts.pub/article/what-if-india-pakistan-went-to-war-again.md.summary.md --- To many, a war between India and Pakistan is not just a hypothetical — some view it as inevitable. Although the two countries have only existed independently for just over 75 years, they have already gone to war with each other on four separate occasions, and that does not even include the many smaller border skirmishes that have resulted in the deaths of thousands. Because both nations have grown and advanced considerably in the last few decades, if a modern-day war were to erupt between India and Pakistan, it now has the potential to be one of the most devastating conflicts in all of human history. What could possibly spark the next full-scale Indo-Pakistani conflict, and just how destructive might such a war be? ## Key Takeaways - India and Pakistan have fought four wars since 1947, three over Kashmir and one over the independence of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), with the Kargil War of 1999 being the first between two nuclear-armed states. - The 1947 partition of British India triggered one of history's worst refugee crises, with over 10 million migrants and more than a million killed in communal violence. - The 2008 Mumbai Attacks by Lashkar-e-Taiba brought both nations to the brink of nuclear war, with both air forces on maximum readiness and leaders in contact with nuclear command teams. - India holds significant conventional military advantages: 650 fighter jets versus 450, over 1,000 T-90 tanks, 1.4 million active personnel, 10 destroyers, and the only aircraft carrier in the rivalry. - India's Cold Start doctrine keeps forces near the border for an immediate spearhead advance into Pakistan before nuclear escalation or international intervention can occur. - A Rutgers University study estimated that even a small-scale Indo-Pakistani nuclear exchange would instantly kill 125 million people and lead to nearly 2 billion deaths from disrupted food production. ## Partition and the Roots of Conflict in British India The modern conflicts of this region began right after World War 2, and, like so many other conflicts, it all stemmed straight from the British Empire. At that point in time, most of South Asia was regarded as a single territory — British India, an absolutely massive colony under the administration of the British Raj. During the war, Britain had agreed to give British India its independence once the war was over, and when the time came, they were ready to follow through with their promise. But granting independence was much easier said than done. The real issue was that British India was not just comprised of one nation or people that had been colonized — in fact, there were dozens of ethnicities and languages throughout the region, and the British feared that this could lead to infighting and general chaos if the area was left on its own overnight. While working through possible solutions, it became clear that the biggest issue facing an independent British India was not language or culture, but religious tension, specifically between the large populations of Hindus and Muslims. The consensus among the minority Muslims was that without British rule, they would be the subject of discrimination at the hands of the majority Hindus, and the opinion of many Hindus was that the Muslims would riot and revolt in an attempt to gain power where they could. The fear that this would all spiral into an outright civil war was all too real, especially since this tension had already been building between the groups for decades. A civil war would be bad news — not just for the hundreds of millions of people involved, but also for Britain, who was banking on becoming an ally with their strong former colony. Finally, a solution was brought to the table — partition. The plan was to divide the territory into two separate regions, giving Muslims and Hindus their own independent nations. This plan was implemented in the summer of 1947, having been launched a year earlier than originally anticipated, and made some major changes to the region. Now there were two separate domains: the Dominion of India for the Hindus and the Dominion of Pakistan for the Muslims, split into two sections, West and East Pakistan. The border was drawn up on what was called the Radcliffe Line, carved into maps where the British thought would be best — which was not very good at all. The first issue arose immediately: what were you supposed to do if you woke up on the morning of partition and found yourself in the wrong dominion? This was all part of the Mountbatten Plan — draw a line where it best separates the religions, and anyone left behind is free to move across the border. This might have gone more smoothly if there were just a few outliers left on each side of the line, but there were millions. As they all began migrating across the border, chaos erupted, and violence on an unprecedented scale was unleashed. ## Four Wars in 75 Years: From Kashmir to Kargil Violence against men, women, and children, perpetrated by both sides, so suddenly and so intensely that no outside force had the time or the ability to put an end to it. By the end, more than a million people were killed in the madness. Estimates place the total number of migrants at well over 10 million, with some going even higher than 20 million. That number can seem underwhelming compared to more than a billion people living in India today, but 20 million migrants would be the equivalent of the combined populations of Norway, Sweden, and Finland. These huge numbers have earned the partition of India a place among the worst refugee crises in all of history. The worst part was that the partition did not even really solve the issue. Just a few months later, in autumn 1947, the new dominions of India and Pakistan went to war for the first time, fighting for control of the disputed province of Kashmir and Jammu. This was the First Kashmir War, which resulted in nearly 30,000 casualties and a "line of control," or LoC, roughly dividing the disputed region. But this was far from a permanent solution, and by 1965 the Second Kashmir War was underway, this time turning into a massive conflict, leading to the destruction of hundreds of tanks, dozens of airplanes, and tens of thousands of casualties. Despite both sides claiming victory, by the time the UN ceasefire was implemented, there were no territorial changes. The third war between the two powers came just six years later, in 1971, when East Pakistan declared its independence from the West, becoming the country of Bangladesh. Pakistan launched a series of preemptive air strikes on India once they learned that the Indian military was assisting the revolution in East Pakistan, and India responded in full force, with combat on land, in the air, and at sea. Once again, the fighting resulted in thousands more casualties before it was over, though this war is unique in the fact that Pakistan ordered an official surrender. Skirmishes along the border continued nearly every year for the next couple of decades, until in 1999 Pakistani troops crossed the line of control disguised as Kashmiri insurgents, sparking yet another conflict — the Kargil War. Only a few thousand casualties emerged from the battle, but this was perhaps the scariest war of them all, as it could now be described not only as a war between India and Pakistan, but as a war between two nuclear powers. The stakes had never been higher, and perhaps that is why each country was a bit hesitant to go all out. But that hesitancy has been steadily eroding in the decades since, and with every passing year, there are more chances for the next big war to light the fuse. ## The Spark: Terror Attacks, Kashmir, and Water Disputes The disputed province of Kashmir is still the likely culprit for the next war, though it is not the only one. Throughout the 21st century, there have been several terror attacks carried out on Indian soil, many of which India has traced back to Pakistani intelligence operations, though Pakistan denies this. One such attack, a bombing of Indian Parliament in 2001, led to both sides piling up tens of thousands of troops in Kashmir, ready to attack at a moment's notice. The world held its breath as peace talks were brokered, and, fortunately, each side agreed to calm the situation and withdraw their armies, but not before a few hundred were killed in minor skirmishes. Another standoff happened a few years later, after the 2008 Mumbai Attacks. These were a series of bombings that took the lives of 175 and wounded more than 300 others. After the lone surviving attacker revealed that the group responsible was a Pakistani Islamist terror group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, India once again accused Pakistani intelligence of funding the operation and began amassing forces in Kashmir. Pakistan responded similarly, and the two armies were staring each other in the eyes once again. This time, the brink of war was as close as ever, with some US senators even calling for a joint US-Indian invasion of Pakistan as part of the ongoing War on Terror. Both air forces were placed on maximum readiness and deployed to frontline air bases, tens of thousands of troops were near the frontline, and both leaders were in constant communication with their nuclear command teams. Private intelligence firm Stratfor even noted that Pakistan had already prepared detailed forward operations and was merely awaiting the green light, and even the terrorist organization responsible for the attacks claimed that they had hundreds of operators with bomb vests ready at a moment's notice. Once again, the situation was eventually defused, but it showed just how easily the tension can snap. In the event of a terror attack similar in scale to the 2008 Mumbai Attacks, India could very well respond with a show of military force that could quickly turn into all-out war. The next most likely cause of war would be either side encroaching once again in Kashmir, but this is more complicated than before, as China also administers about 30% of the disputed region. If either side pushed over the line of control or funded insurgencies on the other side, they would have to be careful not to awake the dragon sleeping next door. The conflict in Kashmir seems like it is only going to get worse, as there are increasing reports that the Taliban plans to arm and fund Islamist militants in the disputed state. Kashmir is also responsible for another disagreement — water. Various river tributaries are claimed by both sides, in a debate that should have been settled by the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, which allocated water equally between each nation, but Pakistan alleges that India has broken this treaty with its recent dam construction. The final reason for a possible conflict could come as a result of a civil war in Pakistan. Pakistan is in an incredibly unstable political state, with its prime minister receiving a no-confidence vote in April of 2022 and surviving an assassination attempt later that year. This instability is fueled by rampant terrorism, sky-high inflation, and systemic corruption among military leaders. There is a big fear that if Pakistan collapses, it will turn into a "nuclear Somalia." Something of this magnitude could easily see an Indian military incursion to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal before it falls into the wrong hands and is either used or sold to a foreign buyer such as Iran. ## Military Balance: India's Advantages on Land, Sea, and Air If a war breaks out in the near future, which side will have the advantage? India fields around 650 fighter jets, while Pakistan has around 450. But it is not just the numbers that make a difference — it is the quality of the aircraft. India has more than 200 Su-30s, an exceptional Soviet-designed multirole fighter, as well as more than a hundred MiG-21s and a few dozen French-made Rafales. Pakistan, on the other hand, will be relying on just a few dozen American-made F-16s, which, while highly capable aircraft, are not modernized in the Pakistani Air Force. The bulk of Pakistan's Air Force is made up of Chinese fighter jets, such as JF-17s and F-7s, which are going to have a tough time competing with the Indian Air Force. India also has the upper hand when it comes to transport aircraft, crucially including hundreds of transport helicopters, which will allow for men and supplies to be moved through the highly mountainous terrain that separates the two countries. On the ground, India's tank inventory is mainly comprised of old Soviet T-72s, but in the last decade or so has seen a huge influx of T-90 imports, a newer Russian tank. India has over a thousand T-90s and has already placed orders for a few hundred more, as well as upgrades for them. Pakistan is fairly outmatched in the tank realm, fielding Chinese refits of old Soviet designs and a few hundred T-80s purchased from Ukraine in the 1990s. This lack of firepower means that Pakistani armor will have to stay on the defense, as facing the Indian tanks in direct combat risks losing hundreds. As far as active personnel go, India once again takes the lead, with 1.4 million — making it the largest volunteer army on the planet — whereas Pakistan has around 600,000 active personnel. India also outguns Pakistan in terms of towed artillery, multiple rocket launch systems, and overall defense budget. India's navy is far more powerful than Pakistan's, with 10 destroyers compared to zero, and India being the only one with an aircraft carrier. At the end of the day, India has the clear advantage, but this does not mean that Pakistan would not put up a fierce fight, and if India plays its cards wrong, things could go south very quickly. ## Cold Start Doctrine and the Catastrophic Nuclear Calculus After the 2008 Mumbai Attacks, the Indian military was unable to respond militarily to Pakistan, despite many wishing for such a response. By the time India gathered their forces on the border, Pakistan had already assumed defensive positions, and India would have taken significant casualties if they had pushed on. This is why, following the standoff, India rewrote its military doctrine for a war with Pakistan. Currently, their known strategy is called "Cold Start," which involves keeping a significant force near the border at all times. If a similar terror attack happens again, India is able to immediately respond with a spearhead advance into Pakistan. The idea is to slice so quickly and so deeply into Pakistani territory that strategic goals can be achieved before the international community steps in to call for a ceasefire, and before Pakistan has a chance to use tactical nuclear weapons. Studies have put various estimates out for a direct conflict between the two powers, with one to two million casualties being the bare minimum if each country fully commits their armed forces, with many of these casualties coming from missile strikes in densely populated Indian cities. But simply due to the fact that both countries are nuclear powers, a war here has the potential to kill not just millions, but billions. A study at Rutgers University found that even a small-scale nuclear exchange would instantly kill 125 million people, and, in the weeks afterward, lead to the deaths of nearly 2 billion. The researchers arrived at these conclusions by estimating the effects on crop yields, fresh water supplies, climate, and animal products. Because this region of the world is responsible for so much of the world's food production — especially concerning rice, cereals, and sugar — hunger would spread through the supply chain like a wildfire. This would have absolutely devastating effects on countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sri Lanka, who heavily rely on India to feed their population, while also disrupting the global food market on an unprecedented level. Another effect of a nuclear war would be the inevitable nuclear winter. If the two countries detonated a significant portion of their warheads, it would release an estimated 37 million tons of soot into the atmosphere, which could plunge global temperatures by several degrees Celsius, to temperatures potentially not experienced since the end of the last ice age. When all is said and done, another Indo-Pakistani war is unlikely to have a victor now that nuclear weapons are on the table, and perhaps that is why it likely will not happen soon. Unless India is confident that it can steamroll its neighbor before things escalate, the situation is likely going to remain a tense standoff until the various disputes are resolved — which does not seem to be happening anytime soon. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### How many times have India and Pakistan gone to war, and over what? India and Pakistan have fought four wars since 1947. The First and Second Kashmir Wars, in 1947 and 1965, were both fought over the disputed province of Kashmir and Jammu. The 1971 war was triggered when Pakistan launched preemptive air strikes on India after New Delhi began supporting East Pakistan's independence movement, ending in Pakistan's formal surrender and the creation of Bangladesh. The 1999 Kargil War, the first between two nuclear-armed states, began when Pakistani troops crossed the line of control disguised as Kashmiri insurgents. ### What makes the 2008 Mumbai Attacks such a significant flashpoint in Indo-Pakistani tensions? The 2008 Mumbai bombings killed 175 people and wounded more than 300. The lone surviving attacker identified the perpetrators as Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani Islamist group, prompting India to accuse Pakistani intelligence of funding the operation. Both air forces were placed on maximum readiness, tens of thousands of troops moved to frontline positions, and both leaders entered constant communication with their nuclear command teams. Private intelligence firm Stratfor noted Pakistan had already prepared forward operations and awaited only a green light. ### What conventional military advantages does India hold over Pakistan? India fields around 650 fighter jets versus Pakistan's 450, including superior aircraft like over 200 Su-30s and dozens of French-made Rafales compared to Pakistan's aging F-16s and Chinese jets. India has over 1,000 T-90 tanks versus Pakistan's outdated Chinese refits and Cold War-era T-80s. India also has 1.4 million active personnel against Pakistan's 600,000, a far larger navy with 10 destroyers and the region's only aircraft carrier, and a higher defense budget. ### What is India's Cold Start doctrine, and why was it developed? Cold Start was India's strategic response to its inability to react militarily after the 2008 Mumbai Attacks, when Pakistan had already assumed defensive positions by the time Indian forces mobilized. The doctrine involves keeping a significant force near the border at all times so India can launch an immediate spearhead advance into Pakistani territory should a similar attack occur. The goal is to achieve strategic objectives before the international community calls for a ceasefire or Pakistan has time to deploy tactical nuclear weapons. ### How many people could die in an Indo-Pakistani nuclear exchange? A Rutgers University study estimated that even a small-scale nuclear exchange would instantly kill 125 million people and, in the following weeks, lead to the deaths of nearly 2 billion more. The researchers attributed those figures to the devastating effects on crop yields, fresh water supplies, and climate. Because India and Pakistan together produce a huge share of global rice, cereals, and sugar, the disruption to the food supply chain would spread hunger to countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sri Lanka that depend heavily on the region's agricultural output. ## Related Coverage - [India’s Water Gambit: How the Indus Treaty Could Starve Pakistan](https://warfronts-prod.fulcrum-labs.workers.dev/geopolitics/indias-water-gambit-indus-treaty-starve-pakistan) - [Is a Decades-Long Turkish War Finally Over? Abdullah Öcalan Calls for Peace.](https://warfronts.pub/conflicts/is-a-decades-long-turkish-war-finally-over-abdullah-calan-calls-for-peace) - [Myanmar’s Civil War: Why Can’t Any Side Break Through?](https://warfronts.pub/conflicts/myanmars-civil-war-why-cant-any-side-break-through) - [War is Coming. Europe isn't Ready.](https://warfronts.pub/conflicts/war-is-coming-europe-isnt-ready) - [Sudan's Forgotten War: Why the World Looks Away](https://warfronts.pub/conflicts/sudans-forgotten-war) <!-- youtube:7imfKj1zc5I -->