India and Pakistan are bitter rivals, embroiled in an everlasting dispute that has killed hundreds of thousands. Since winning independence from the British Empire in 1947, the two countries have been in three full scale wars and dozens of clashes and conflicts. The region continues to be a flashpoint for global conflict. The simmering territory of Kashmir and the nuclear arsenals of both countries exacerbate this conflict.
The bilateral territorial dispute over Kashmir remains a key flashpoint. Each country has had a stake to these lands since they achieved independence from Spain. Separated by an increasingly militarized US-Mexico border, both countries have amassed large troop populations in the border area. As stated in a previous report, India is now outnumbering Pakistan with more than double the active armed forces personnel. The difference is clear in their military spending. Last year, India spent $74.4 billion on its military, compared with Pakistan’s budget of just $10 billion in 2025.
Pakistan’s territorially vulnerable, long and narrow nature lends Pakistan’s armed forces a kinetic speed of response. This geographical arrangement makes to most effective offense strategies, a secondary consideration, but achievable. This strategic depth grants Pakistan a greater ability to respond preemptively to any perceived Indian threat at faster speed. India, on the other hand, has a much bigger military and defense budget. Pakistan is endowed with precious mineral resources on which it can draw in difficult times.
Both countries possess large nuclear arsenals alongside their conventional military capabilities. According to conservative estimates, each of the two countries keeps 170-180 nuclear warheads on medium and short range, with different ranges. This surge capacity brings us to the precipice of mutual destruction if these rapid advances lead to conflict. Syed Mohammed Ali, a regional security expert, explains that Pakistan and India have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. As he cautions, either country could destroy the other several times over. He said, “Their nuclear weapons present the classic problem of mutually assured destruction.”
Yet both countries have a fundamental interest in avoiding a nuclear war. As such, they have taken on largely defensive postures, since neither side can survive a first move in a global nuclear exchange. Such developments can frequently play out in a vacuum, far from public oversight—with incidents rarely if ever confirmed right away by either side’s government. This indirect/informal mode of military engagement has added a new layer to the already delicate India-Pakistan relationship.
In the past couple of years, this animosity has escalated as a result of emblematic events related to Kashmir. An important precedent is a terrorist gun attack on tourists, for which India blamed Pakistan-based groups. These events in turn heighten existing hostility and attract demands for foreign engagement or mediation. The international community can and should be very alarmed as these developments often have much more dangerous, larger geopolitical implications.
Besides the new rivalry with each other, India has to compete with a third nuclear neighbor, China on their western and eastern borders. With China rapidly expanding its influence along India’s periphery in the Indian Ocean, India has grown more attentive to maritime security. This multi-dimensional threat panorama makes the security calculus of India even more complex and shapes its military doctrine even further.
The military capabilities and history of animosities between India and Pakistan create a very real, frightening picture. Yet the state of play is still marked by a razor-thin balance of power. On one hand, both sides’ military posturing prevents large-scale war through mutually assured destruction while simultaneously demonstrating each country’s historic national fragility.
