India strikes nine targets in Pakistan and Kashmir

India strikes nine targets in Pakistan and Kashmir

Early Thursday morning, India launched a wave of missiles against what its Ministry of Defence described as "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan and Sarracinabad-administered Kashmir. The Indian army confirmed the attacks with a brief social media message—"Justice served. Jai Hind"—while the ministry stated that nine locations linked to armed groups were hit. Pakistan closed its airspace for 48 hours and claims retaliation is underway by land and air. This is not a deterrence exercise: it is the largest Indian missile attack on Pakistani territory in peacetime, according to a forum user.

What exactly peine?

The Indian Ministry of Defence announced "precision strikes" against nine targets it describes as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, Jammu, and Kashmir. The official statement emphasizes that no military positions of the Pakistani Army were attacked, a detail that sounds like an attempt to set limits before escalation spirals out of control. Early ground reports from conflict observers identify a mosque, a madrasa, and a Pakistan Air Force base among the first targets. The choice is not innocent: mixing religious sites with military facilities complicates any narrative of a "surgical counter-terrorism operation."

Pakistan reacted quickly. It closed its airspace for 48 hours, and sources cited by international media say retaliation is ongoing by land and air. Intense clashes between troops from both countries have been reported at three points along the Kashmir border. Entire families are fleeing the bombed areas, according to testimonies from the ground.

The 2019 precedent and why this is different

In 2019, Indian fighter jets bombed Balakot in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province after a suicide bomber killed 40 Indian paramilitary soldiers in Indian-administered Kashmir. That operation was aerial, limited, and presented as a specific retaliatory measure. This one is more extensive: Pakistan claims India has struck three cities, and the geographic scope makes this episode the largest Indian missile attack on Pakistan and territories it controls outside the wars fought by both nuclear-armed neighbors, according to a forum user.

The difference is not just scale. In 2019, the context was retaliation for a specific attack. Now, the backdrop includes a prior terrorist attack in Pahalgam that the Indian army has directly linked to this operation. The official Indian message—"Justice served"—refers to that connection. Pakistan, for its part, has not yet issued a formal response beyond announcing retaliation and closing its airspace.

Could this escalate into open war between India and Pakistan?

The short answer is that no one knows, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying. What can be said is that both countries possess nuclear weapons, which has historically acted as a brake. Serious hostilities occurred in 1999 during the Kargil conflict, which lasted months before both sides returned to a temporary calm. The most repeated argument is that thanks to weapons of mass destruction, neither side will push the rope until it breaks.

But some argue the opposite: that paranoia in Pakistan is currently extreme, that Pakistanis are "blinded by rage," and that a miscalculation on a hot border like Kashmir could trigger something neither capital controls. The disparity in military power is overwhelming—India surpasses Pakistan in population, industry, economy, and armed forces—but that has never prevented a border conflict from turning into open war. The question is what scenario each side limits its actions to.

Indus water: the red line no one wants to cross

A factor has entered the conversation that may be more decisive than missiles: cutting off the Indus River flow. If India decides to block or divert the water, that is not a skirmish; it is a full declaration of war. Pakistan critically depends on this river for agriculture and urban supply. So far, neither party has confirmed that water resources have been touched, but the mere mention has raised all alarms.

The conflict has a religious and cultural dimension that complicates any negotiated solution. Some argue that only the annihilation of one of the two peoples would resolve it, a stance reflecting deep-seated hatred but offering no realistic exit. Recent history shows both countries have learned to live with tension without reaching total clash. The question is whether the calculation remains the same this time.

What role do international powers play?

Little or none. Neither Russia nor China is interested in supporting either faction, let alone the West. Europe cannot intervene: if it supports Pakistan, it burns; if it supports India, it burns less, but still burns. The EU will likely limit itself to a statement urging calm. The United States has its own open fronts and seems unwilling to mediate.

The result is a bilateral conflict with two nuclear actors, no credible referees, and a hot border. The international community looks away because there is nothing to gain and much to lose. Meanwhile, missiles have already flown, and families are already fleeing.

---

The cautious prediction is this: if Indus water is not touched and Pakistan limits itself to symbolic retaliation, things will cool down in weeks. If someone makes a mistake at the border or decides the river is a legitimate card, the scenario changes completely. With two nuclear arsenals at stake, rationality usually prevails. Usually.