Latest news with #AirOperations
India Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Understood mistakes, rectified them: Top General reflects on Op Sindoor losses
India's top military general has admitted for the first time that an unspecified number of its fighter jets were downed during the hostilities with Pakistan, but asserted that the armed forces rectified its mistakes quickly to hit Islamabad an interview with Bloomberg on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan, however, dismissed the Pakistan Prime Minister's claims that it shot down six Indian jets, including four Rafales, as "absolutely incorrect". advertisement"What is important is that, not the jet being down, but why they were being down... Why they were down, what mistakes were made - that are important. Numbers are not important," General Chauhan said.'QUICK TO REMEDY TACTICAL MISTAKES' However, the Chief of Defence Staff said the armed forces were quick to analyse the "tactical mistakes", remedy them, and again target Pakistan two days later as part of Operation Sindoor."The good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and flew all our jets again, targeting at long range," General Chauhan remarks are the most direct by the army so far on losses suffered during the hostilities, which came as India destroyed nine terror camps deep inside Pakistan. It was in response to the horrific Pahalgam attack, which left 25 tourists Pakistan retaliated by launching a wave of drone attacks targeting Indian military facilities and border towns, the armed forces struck 11 vital airbases with long-range BrahMos the armed forces had deflected questions about Indian jets being shot down by Pakistan. Addressing a press conference, Air Marshal AK Bharti, Director General of Air Operations (DGAO), said "losses are a part of any combat scenario". However, he said all Indian pilots "were back"."We are in a combat scenario and losses are a part of it. Question is have we achieved our objective? Answer is a thumping yes. At this time, I would not like to comment on that (loss of jets) as we are still in combat and give advantage to adversary. All our pilots are back home," he NUCLEAR WEAPONS, CEASEFIRE WITH PAKThe Chief of Defence Staff also made it clear that the conflict never came close to a nuclear war, while underscoring that "channels of communication" with Pakistan were always open to control the flies in the face of US President Donald Trump's repeated assertion that he avoided a potential nuclear disaster by mediating the ceasefire between India and Pakistan."I personally feel that there is a lot of space between conduct of conventional operations and the nuclear threshold," General Chauhan told Bloomberg.
The Hindu
25-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
India's Operation Sindoor: Strategic Gamble or Show of Strength?
Published : May 25, 2025 09:56 IST - 12 MINS READ Indian losses in Operation Sindoor, and in Pakistan's retaliatory Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos (Wall of Lead or Impenetrable Wall), have not been disclosed by the Central government and, a visibly partisan political calculus indicates, are unlikely to be acknowledged in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, it is useful to recall that losses to the Air Force in particular were acknowledged by Air Marshal A.K. Bharti, Director General of Air Operations, during the Tri Service Press Conference, when he was questioned about the loss of aircraft. He responded, cryptically: 'We are in a combat scenario and losses are part of combat,' though he refused to give further details. The settled consensus internationally is that India did lose aircraft in the initial phase of Operation Sindoor, though the numbers are disputed. It could not have been otherwise. For a full fortnight, our leadership had been making declarations of intent to wreak vengeance on Pakistan for the Pahalgam terror attack. Union Minister for External Affairs S. Jaishankar has now conceded: 'At the start of the operation, we had sent a message to Pakistan saying we are striking at terrorist infrastructure, we are not striking at the military, so the military has the option of standing out and not interfering in this process. They chose not to take that good advice.' So, the top strategic minds of India thought that Pakistan would simply accept the international and domestic odium of having targets bombed deep inside its territory and do nothing? Or wait on niceties of rules imagined by India? That as long as Indian planes did not cross the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border (IB), the Pakistani forces would simply sit on their hands or engage in symbolic demonstration, avoiding military targets, even if Indian missiles blasted targets deep inside Pakistani territory? Lost opportunity We have become quite used to fixed matches in sports: was this supposed to be some sort of fixed contest that would allow both sides to proclaim cheap victories? Or was it, indeed, vengeance by an angered nation for a terrible terrorist atrocity? If the latter was, in fact, the objective, then India would have waited and struck without warning, at a time when the top terrorist leadership and significant numbers of cadres were present in the various locations targeted. Also Read | The Valley's hush is not healing Instead, ample warning was given to authorities in Pakistan to clean out the prominent terrorist locations, resulting in fairly limited losses for an operation of the scale that we launched with such fanfare. The entire chain of developments put our air assets and our pilots at extraordinary, and unjustifiable, risk, and a price has certainly been paid for this blunder. It is India's fighting men who must pay for the political leadership's folly of treating lethal military operations as if they were children's sport. Is this India's vaunted strategy of 'offensive defence'? As an aside, it is useful to note here that several defence experts around the world are making technical assumptions based on their understanding of the initial skirmishes between Indian air assets and the Chinese-made Pakistani platforms. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that the Indian planes were essentially sitting ducks, operating on the assumption that Pakistan would not attack as long as Indian aircraft did not cross the LoC/IB—which they did not. Pakistan was also on full alert, with repeated warnings from India and a clear indication that India would only attack terrorist, and not military, targets. This, as the Minister's statement now confirms, was officially communicated to Pakistan on the assumption that they would play the game by our rules. They chose not to. Our airmen and air assets paid the price for political folly. This was not an open dog fight. The rival systems are yet to be tested in equal combat. But the notional capabilities of the Chinese platforms would certainly need to be assessed and accommodated in the emerging technologies mounted on Indian and Western platforms. Reality in Kashmir It is abundantly clear that the present regime in New Delhi is concerned more with appearances than with reality, and this is not just with respect to Operation Sindoor. The government would have us believe that the past 11 years have been a period of unprecedented counterterrorism achievement; that it has succeeded spectacularly where all regimes of the past have failed; that the abrogation of Article 370 brought about the transformations necessary to defeat terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, allowing 'zero terrorism' to be established and 'normalcy' to be restored; and that the surgical strikes (2016) and the Balakot bombing (2019) were effective deterrents to Pakistani support for Islamist terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, until their effect wore off, requiring a new and expanded operation to 'restore' deterrence. It is crucial that this narrative be examined in view of the facts and data. Such an examination will demonstrate that Operation Sindoor was not a strategic necessity but simply a spectacle for partisan sections of the domestic audience whose passions had, in turn, been intentionally inflamed into a warmongering frenzy of hate in the wake of the Pahalgam attack. It will demonstrate, moreover, that the present government's entire 'Kashmir policy' is ideology-led and based on falsehoods. History of terrorism in J&K Terrorism-linked fatalities in Jammu and Kashmir peaked under the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime (October 13, 1999 to May 21, 2004) at 13,475, including 3,302 civilians and 2,026 security forces (SF) personnel (all data from South Asia Terrorism Portal). Under Manmohan Singh's first tenure (May 22, 2004, to May 21, 2009), total fatalities fell by 60 per cent to 5,390, including 1,221 civilians and 843 SF personnel. They fell further to a total of 1,128 during his second tenure—less than 8.34 per cent of the Vajpayee tenure—including 147 civilians and 229 SF personnel. In a decade, without tampering with Article 370, without collective punishment, without the lawless demolition of homes, without curfews that locked down the population for months at a time, without any significant alteration of the political system or the status of Jammu and Kashmir, the man that some current commentators dismiss as the country's weakest Prime Minister reduced terrorism by 91.66 per cent over a decade. Total fatalities under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's first tenure (May 26, 2014, to May 29, 2019) spiked to 3,588, an increase of 68.56 per cent over Singh's second tenure. This was despite the 'muscularity' of the Modi government's approach to Jammu and Kashmir, its population, and to Pakistan. Crucially, this period included the Uri attack (September 18, 2016) and the surgical strikes (September 28, 2016), and the alleged deterrence the latter imposed. But terrorism-linked fatalities actually increased in the following years, with significant increases in all categories. Thus, where there were 267 fatalities in the 2016 calendar year (14 civilians, 88 SF personnel, and 165 terrorists), the number rose to 357 in 2017 (54 civilians, 83 SF personnel, and 220 terrorists) and to 452 in 2018 (86 civilians, 95 SF personnel, and 271 terrorists). Also Read | When Indo-Pak tensions go high-tech, it's the people who pay the price And yet, the myth of the deterrent value of the surgical strikes is obediently parroted, not only by partisans and paid trolls of the present regime but by many experts and commentators who should know better but do not bother to familiarise themselves with the actual trends. This is the power of the 'narrative', and it has been imposed with extraordinary vigour and success on our own populations. The enemy, however, is probably more familiar with the reality and plans its operations on a more implacable basis. Balakot and Pakistani retaliation The evidence-based consensus on the Balakot air strikes (February 26, 2019) is that the operation was a tactical failure, the myth-making notwithstanding. It did, nevertheless, communicate the message that India was willing to push the red lines of retaliation, and Pakistan could no longer rest assured that India would not attack targets across the border. Pakistan, however, also demonstrated not only its willingness but competence as well to effectively attack targets across the border and to counter India's air power, with the confirmed downing of an Indian aircraft and the capture of its pilot. It is not clear how much 'deterrence' such an operation could have imposed. The numbers, however, do indicate some declines, reversals, and eventually a sustained waning of terrorism trends in Jammu and Kashmir. Nevertheless, total fatalities in Jammu and Kashmir during Prime Minister Modi's second term (May 30, 2019, to June 8, 2024), at 1,270 (including 159 civilians, 241 SF personnel, 868 terrorists, and 2 in the 'not specified' category), still compare adversely, albeit marginally so, to those of Manmohan Singh's second term, with a total of 1,128 fatalities, despite the many draconian measures introduced in Jammu and Kashmir under Modi. Significantly, the Manmohan Singh era also recorded the lowest fatalities for a single calendar year, at 121, since 1990—a figure yet to be equalled 11 years later. However, fatalities recorded a spike in Singh's last calendar year, 2013, touching 172—a number that the Modi regime was only able to improve upon in 2023 and 2024 (at 134 and 127, respectively). Needless measures This is not intended as a report card on the counterterrorism policies of these three Prime Ministers. Many factors in both India and Pakistan, the global environment, the declining Western 'tolerance of terrorism', the trajectory of the conflict in Afghanistan, the circumstances inherited, the divergent course of economic development and politics between the two countries, inter alia, have had a decisive influence on the trends in terrorism. All that is intended in this brief review of the data is to clarify that the current narrative of BJP triumphalism is not consistent with the record, and that much more had already been achieved without the excessive measures adopted under the Modi regime. The lesson here, moreover, is that any one-off 'reprisal' is unlikely to have an enduring impact on Pakistan's and the terrorists' (and the two are really the same) motives and intent, though on each occasion they may catalyse shifts in operations and tactics. Moreover, the trends in terrorism are not based on any simple single-factor equation—reprisals or Article 370 or 'muscular counterterrorism' or 'development'—but are the outcome of a complex mix of dynamic factors, among which the most important have been the progressive dominance of security operations, and the continuing diminution of Pakistan's disruptive capacities owing to both internal and external factors, as well as elements of chance. No single policy initiative by the present regime—beyond continuing support to security operations in Jammu and Kashmir—is part of any positive causal chain, although several initiatives have likely made the job of security personnel more difficult. How to make Pakistan pay None of this, moreover, is intended to suggest that Pakistan must be allowed to continue its support to terrorism without bearing costs. Indeed, crippling costs must be imposed. It implies only that the current approach to punitive action and deterrence is divorced from the realities of the ground and lacking in basic strategic sagacity. After Operation Sindoor, India's leadership appears to be painting itself more and more into a corner with its rhetoric. Declarations that any future terror attack on India's soil will be treated as an 'act of war' and that Operation Sindoor is the 'new normal' are trapping the country into an escalating military response to undefined levels of terrorism. The military option must, of course, always be retained in the national arsenal. But it should not be seen as the exclusive or knee-jerk response. There is a multiplicity of alternatives that must not only be explored but assembled into a sustained national strategy of protracted conflict, using all instrumentalities of state power to erode Pakistan's remaining strengths and to exploit its weaknesses, until Rawalpindi, where the Pakistan Army's headquarters is located, realises that the sponsorship of terrorism is no longer affordable if the state is to survive. Threatening military responses to every future act of terrorism—even if the threshold of such acts is retained at a relatively high level—also projects India as an increasingly unstable power, and this will inflict tremendous costs on New Delhi as it seeks to maintain a stable international investment environment and high growth rates. Operation Sindoor has already attracted unwanted US intervention, and each future iteration of such operations will bring with it the added burden of global concerns, both sincere and opportunistic. Covert responses Under the circumstances, rather than projecting a 'muscular' military position, India should increasingly examine a range of covert responses across the entire unrestricted warfare spectrum—including the targeting of Pakistan's mouldering economy; its multiple political, ethnic, and sectarian issues; the aggressive mobilisation of the international community; and a range of covert measures that are best left undefined. This is likely to be the problem with exploring these alternatives: the present regime seeks to exploit every initiative for partisan political ends and to take public credit for every action—something that cannot be achieved by covert interventions. The tragic reality is that domestic politics invariably trumps national security, and unless the Indian leadership can find the strength and stature to rise above its petty obsessions, a sustained strategy of compellence is likely to remain elusive. Also Read | Indo-Pak: What next? There is no doubt that Pakistan suffered the bulk of harm in the latter part of Operation Sindoor, and that its drone and missile attacks against Indian cities and military targets were successfully neutralised by our air defence systems. Pakistan will certainly regroup both its conventional military forces as well as its terrorist proxies, with necessary adaptions to accommodate what it expects would be the next Indian response to its misadventures. Pakistan's friends, most prominently China and Türkiye, can be expected to study the gaps in Pakistan's defence structures and systems and help plug them with new technologies. There is no space for complacence. Pakistan is not going to relinquish its ambitions and its obsession with its purported 'core issue' and 'jugular vein'. Fitful operations, irrespective of the quantum of success, will not create the deterrent India seeks. India must design a long-term strategy of compellence against Pakistan, and provide adequate resources and create necessary institutional structures for its uninterrupted execution. Ajai Sahni is Executive Director of the Institute for Conflict Management and South Asia Terrorism Portal and editor of South Asia Intelligence Review.
Indian Express
16-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
China comments on India-Pakistan ceasefire, clinches tariff deal with US
It's almost a week since India and Pakistan declared a ceasefire on May 10. As detailed in our last tracker, China has been commenting on Operation Sindoor, saying both countries were its neighbours and that it was 'willing to continue playing a constructive role in this regard'. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke to his Pakistani counterpart Ishaq Dar and with India's National Security Adviser Ajit Doval. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif lauded China's support for Pakistan. Notably, Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs commented on the events. On Wednesday, India rejected a list of Chinese names for places in Arunachal Pradesh, for attempting to alter the 'undeniable' reality of the state being an integral part of India. China, which describes Arunachal Pradesh as 'South Tibet', has engaged in this practice periodically since 2017. We wrote about it in an explainer here. Over the last weekend, the United States and China took a major step forward in their tariff war. Substantial tariff reductions were announced, which brought relief to markets and businesses in both countries. Here's a look at four key developments. Wang told Doval that China condemned 'the terrorist attacks in Pahalgam area and opposes all forms of terrorism'. To Dar, however, he said Pakistan was 'standing at the forefront of the international fight against terrorism' and had 'made important contributions to counterterrorism efforts'. A few hours after the ceasefire went into force on May 10, Sharif in a speech called China a 'very dear, very trustworthy, and very dear friend'. China, he said, has 'always been there in the times when Pakistan needed them and they have never even acknowledged the loss or profit'; 'always been there for Pakistan's support and integrity'. On May 12, India acknowledged China's role for the first time since Operation Sindoor began. During a press briefing, Air Marshal A K Bharti, Director General Air Operations, presented visual evidence of a piece of the Chinese-made PL-15 long-range missile that India's air defences had shot down. Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs also commented on the tensions on May 10. In a statement, it expressed 'firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the Government of India to safeguard national security and fight terrorist forces that cross borders to attack innocent civilians.' UPSHOT: The Chinese government's official comments, as well as stories on its state-backed media outlets in recent days, have lent support to Pakistan's narrative. There is little mention of Pakistan's known links to terror groups or China's part in blocking UN designations of terrorists, and Pakistan has expressed its gratitude in response. Taiwan's response figures among the strongest statements globally in favour of India. Regarded as a 'renegade province' by China, the island has sought to assert its independence from the mainland in the last decade or so. India and Taiwan do not enjoy a full diplomatic relationship, as China deems recognition of its claims over Taiwan as a precondition for diplomatic ties. However, India and Taiwan have limited engagement, including on trade. 2. Tariff deal with the US Ahead of talks in Switzerland between the trade representatives of China and the United States over the weekend, expectations were measured. It was assumed that the triple-digit tariffs both countries imposed on each other would fall slightly, but the final result went much further. Currently, the US has a 30% tariff on Chinese goods, down from 145%. Of this, 10% is the flat rate applicable to all countries. The remaining 20% is for China's alleged role in supplying the deadly opioid fentanyl to the US. China's own 10% retaliatory tariff on the US over fentanyl continues, but it is far less than the earlier 125%. An official mechanism was announced on Monday to ensure dialogue between the representatives of the two countries, led by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. The Chinese representative repeated China's oft-stated view that 'There are no winners in a trade war', and that 'China does not want a trade war, but is not afraid of one.' Bessent struck a conciliatory tone, saying the aim was to secure a long-term trade deal, and that 'neither side wants to decouple'. UPSHOT: Both sides needed a reduction in tariffs owing to their huge economic dependence on one another. The total US-China goods trade stood at $582 billion in 2024. One obstacle, for the time being, is the fentanyl issue. It is among the biggest causes of deaths due to drug overdoses in the US. China has often blamed the US's domestic problems and inefficiencies for its supply in the country. This, even as reports have pointed to the drug's precursor chemicals being produced in China and sent to Mexico for production. In the past, the US and China have collaborated on the issue, despite lows in other aspects of their relationship. 3. Central bank attempts to boost liquidity China's central bank, the People's Bank of China, cut the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) by 0.5 percentage points for financial institutions on Thursday. This effectively reduces the amount they are expected to hold, and could free up about 1 trillion yuan ($138.77 billion) in long-term liquidity into the market. The Communist Party mouthpiece Global Times said that earlier this month, the bank announced plans for monetary policies to enhance macroeconomic regulation, including lowering the lending policy rate. UPSHOT: Beginning in September 2024, the Chinese government has introduced stimulus packages and policies to put more money in the hands of the people. These include increasing pay for government workers in January and a 10 trillion yuan ($1.36 trillion) debt package for local governments in November 2024. Some analysts said the latter was inadequate, and that more direct measures are needed to spur consumer spending. The concerns around low domestic consumption in China have been raised for years now, even before the Covid-19 pandemic. With the added threat of Trump's tariffs, turning inwards was seen as an alternative. 4. New BRI deal, outreach to Latin America On Wednesday, China signed a joint cooperation plan with Colombia for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), its flagship infrastructure funding scheme. A day prior, Xi also held talks with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Beijing. The leaders were present in Beijing for the three-yearly China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) Forum Ministerial Meeting. The regional forum includes 32 countries. China announced it would give $9.18 billion in credit to CELAC members. In a speech, Chinese President Xi Jinping underlined that China and CELAC nations were 'important members of the Global South.' He also said China would import more from Latin America and encourage its firms to boost investment. Already, China has looked to Brazil for agricultural imports, in part to reduce its dependence on the US for products such as soybeans. UPSHOT: Despite criticism over its high costs and sustainability in many parts of the world, the BRI continues to sign on new partners, given China's standing as a source of funds. China's outreach in what is traditionally seen as the US's regional backyard also matters from a strategic perspective. Notably, Panama announced its decision to exit the BRI in February, which followed several statements from Trump and other US officials about Chinese presence in the country. Another aspect is that Caribbean nations, including Haiti and Saint Lucia, are among the handful of countries worldwide that still accord diplomatic recognition to Taiwan. Both their representatives were in attendance at the summit. China has utilised its economic influence and the promise of trade over the decades to get countries to give up official ties with Taiwan. Rishika Singh is a Senior sub-editor at the Explained Desk of The Indian Express. She enjoys writing on issues related to international relations, and in particular, likes to follow analyses of news from China. Additionally, she writes on developments related to politics and culture in India. ... Read More
New Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
IAEA rejects 'radiation leak' rumours at Pakistan nuclear sites after clash with India
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Thursday confirmed that no radiation leak or release has occurred from any nuclear facility in Pakistan, following speculation that Indian airstrikes under 'Operation Sindoor' may have targeted sensitive installations. "Based on information available to the IAEA, there has been no radiation leak or release from any nuclear facility in Pakistan," a spokesperson for the agency said in a statement issued in response to queries. The IAEA's clarification comes days after unverified claims circulated on social media suggesting that India's armed forces had struck Kirana Hills, an area in Pakistan reported to house nuclear infrastructure. These allegations emerged after India launched coordinated military strikes on May 7 in response to the April terror attack in J&K's Pahalgam, that killed 26 civilians, including a Nepali national. Notably, India has rejected claims that it targeted nuclear sites. Air Marshal AK Bharti, Director General of Air Operations, told reporters on May 12, "We have not hit Kirana Hills, whatever is there." When asked about the location, he added, "Thank you for telling us that Kirana Hills houses some nuclear installation, we did not know about it." India's strikes targeted airbases in Sargodha and Nur Khan, as well as other military sites across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, damaging radar systems, communication facilities, and airfields, according to Indian officials. Meanwhile, Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Thursday said that Pakistan's nuclear weapons should be brought under the supervision of the IAEA as they are not safe in such a rogue nation. The defence minister's comments came days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India would not tolerate "nuclear blackmail" by Pakistan and would punish cross-border terrorism strongly. Similarly, External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal dismissed US President Donald Trump's comments suggesting that Washington had helped avert a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. He said India's military operations were "in the conventional domain" and rejected suggestions of a nuclear escalation. Trump had earlier claimed, "We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war. Millions of people could have been killed." Tensions between India and Pakistan began to de-escalate following an understanding on the cessation of hostilities reached on May 10.
India.com
15-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Kirana Hills: Pakistan's nuclear center no longer a secret from world due to…..
Home News Kirana Hills: Pakistan's nuclear center no longer a secret from world due to….. Kirana Hills: Pakistan's nuclear center no longer a secret from world due to….. Kirana Hills has been linked to Pakistan's nuclear ambitions since the 1980s, a time when the country was preparing to respond to India's nuclear advancements. Between 1983 and 1990, Pakistan conducted a series of "cold tests" or subcritical nuclear tests at Kirana Hills. Kirana Hills: Pakistan's nuclear centre no longer a secret from world due to..... Nuclear capacity of Pakistan and Kirana hills has been in news since Operation Sindoor. Pakistan till date had kept Kirana Hills, located in Punjab province near the city of Sargodha, as one of its best secret. However, after Operation Sindoor, India has well exposed it. The Indian Air Force (IAF) however had trashed social media rumours that it hit Pakistan's Kirana Hills, which reportedly has a nuclear facility. 'We have not hit Kirana hills, whatever is there,' Director General of Air Operations Air Marshal AK Bharti said at a media briefing on Operation Sindoor. Media footage showing smoke billowing from the hills and satellite imagery indicating damage near Sargodha, sparked widespread speculation that India had targeted Kirana Hills, potentially damaging a nuclear storage facility. There was also report that there is a leakage of radiation. Some social media posts even linked recent earthquakes in Pakistan to alleged nuclear incidents at Kirana Hills, though no seismic data supports these claims. By targeting sites close to Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, India may have signaled its capability to strike sensitive locations while avoiding direct hits on nuclear facilities to prevent catastrophic escalation. Kirana Hills has been linked to Pakistan's nuclear ambitions since the 1980s, a time when the country was preparing to respond to India's nuclear advancements. Between 1983 and 1990, Pakistan conducted a series of 'cold tests' or subcritical nuclear tests at Kirana Hills. The site's significance is further amplified by its association with Pakistan's tactical nuclear weapons, such as the Nasr missile, designed for battlefield use. For breaking news and live news updates, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram. Read more on Latest World News on More Stories
