UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate

The ongoing tension between nuclear neighbors India and Pakistan raises key questions about their actual military capabilities should a large-scale conflict erupt. With rapid advances in military technology and shifting global alliances – especially considering how the Russia-Ukraine conflict has disrupted military supply chains – serious questions emerge.

Could either country sustain an intensive conventional war for six months? What chances would each have of neutralizing their opponent’s defenses and critical assets? How much could they depend on foreign support to replace losses in such a complex scenario?

Looking objectively at these factors points to a reality far more nuanced than simple weapons counts.

In a recent breakthrough, however, statements from US President Donald Trump have shifted the conversation, announcing successful American mediation resulting in a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan. Trump praised both countries for showing “common sense and great intelligence” in choosing to end the crisis. While this development spares the region from immediate widespread conflict, understanding the underlying military capabilities that fueled this tension remains important, as these tensions could flare up again at any time.

Data shows that ammunition and equipment reserves play a decisive role in a country’s ability to fight a long war. India has traditionally aimed to maintain strategic war stockpiles sufficient for 10 to 40 days of heavy combat. Recent reports since late 2020 indicate India is working hard to ensure supplies for at least 15 days of intensive fighting, with longer-term goals of reaching 40 days, supported by domestic manufacturing initiatives under the “Make in India” program.

Given these figures, India could likely sustain high-intensity warfare for between two weeks and just over a month without major resupply. This limitation may have influenced India’s willingness to accept de-escalation, recognizing the steep costs of prolonged fighting.

Pakistan’s situation appears considerably more challenging, according to recent intelligence and defense analyses. Multiple sources indicate Pakistan’s artillery ammunition reserves – essential for any major ground campaign – might last only four days (96 hours) of high-intensity combat. This critical shortage, if accurate, combined with Pakistan’s economic struggles, severely limits its ability to sustain extended conventional warfare.

The situation worsens with reports that Pakistan has exported ammunition to Ukraine, potentially further depleting its already limited stockpiles. This vulnerability likely influenced Islamabad’s receptiveness to mediation efforts.

In this context, claims about either country lasting six months on initial stockpiles alone seem unrealistic. India remains far from this capability despite its ambitions, while Pakistan faces an existential challenge in this regard.

A war of such duration would require robust domestic production and reliable external supply lines. Both countries, or at least one of them, likely recognized this reality, improving chances for successful peace negotiations.

The complete destruction of an adversary’s air defenses and military assets within six months is virtually impossible.

Both countries possess large armed forces with extensive arsenals distributed across vast territories, making comprehensive destruction unachievable without overwhelming and sustained superiority.

More realistically, we would see considerable degradation of capabilities on both sides, with attacks targeting airports, command centers, radar installations, missile sites, and logistics hubs. The side with better intelligence capabilities, precision weapons, electronic warfare systems, and greater resilience would inflict more damage.

Pakistan, with its potentially limited ammunition supplies, might face faster deterioration of its defensive capabilities in a prolonged conflict without substantial external support.

This mutual vulnerability may have contributed to both sides accepting the ceasefire.

Nuclear deterrence clearly sets boundaries on conventional escalation, as any attempt to completely eliminate the opponent’s military assets could be seen as an existential threat pushing toward nuclear confrontation – a scenario major powers like the United States actively work to prevent through diplomatic channels.

The recent American mediation has proven crucial in managing tensions between India and Pakistan. This intervention by a superpower shows international concern about preventing conflict between nuclear-armed states. It suggests both Washington’s awareness of how dangerous regional escalation could be for global stability and its desire to maintain influence in the region and mould the decisions of both countries.

The American-brokered ceasefire confirms that the “common sense and great intelligence” President Trump mentioned likely came from both sides recognizing these harsh realities and the enormous risks any full-scale confrontation would entail.