Eurasia Press & News
The India-Pakistan conflict—one of the most volatile and enduring rivalries in international politics—has recently entered a transformative phase, signaling a shift from conventional to hybrid and techno-centric warfare. On May 8, 2025, India accused Pakistan of launching drone and missile strikes on three Indian military installations, including targets in Indian-administered Kashmir. Pakistan swiftly denied the allegations and counter-claimed it had neutralized 25 Indian drones over a short time span. While New Delhi has yet to officially respond to this assertion, the episode has escalated tensions along the Line of Control (LoC), introducing a new dimension to the regional security paradigm.
This article critically examines this development through the lens of some major theories in Strategic and Security Studies: Offensive Realism, Security Dilemma Theory, Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), and Constructivist Security Theory. It explores how drone warfare redefines strategic postures, deepens insecurity, and recasts the geopolitical landscape of South Asia.
Drone Warfare and the Logic of Offensive Realism
In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), John J. Mearsheimer argues through the lens of Offensive Realism that states inherently strive for regional hegemony to ensure survival in an anarchic international system. The increasing deployment of drones by India and Pakistan embodies this competitive logic. Rather than being deterred by mutual vulnerability, both nations are pursuing technological advancements to maximize their relative power. India’s acquisition of 31 MQ-9B Predator drones under its $4 billion defense deal with the United States, coupled with its experiments in “swarm drone” technology, clearly illustrates its intent to dominate the aerial surveillance and precision strike domain.
Conversely, Pakistan’s broad drone inventory—featuring Chinese CH-4s, Turkish Bayraktars, and domestically developed Burak and Shahpar UAVs—represents a counter-balancing effort to reduce asymmetry and preserve strategic parity. These developments reveal that drone proliferation is not merely a tactical evolution but a strategic imperative, driven by realist calculations about power projection, first-strike capabilities, and deterrence by punishment.
The Security Dilemma and Regional Destabilization
The current drone-centric standoff exemplifies the Security Dilemma, a concept deeply rooted in the classical writings of Herbert Butterfield and elaborated upon in works like Robert Jervis’s Perception and Misperception in International Politics (1976). As each state acquires drones to enhance its own security, it inadvertently threatens the other, thereby provoking reciprocal militarization. This escalation, in turn, increases the risk of misperceptions and inadvertent conflict.
Unlike traditional artillery exchanges along the LoC, drones possess the unique ability to penetrate contested airspace without immediately triggering full-scale retaliation. Their stealth, precision, and ambiguity amplify the risk of tactical miscalculation and strategic surprise. For example, the ambiguous nature of drone incursions could make it difficult to ascertain intent—was it surveillance, provocation, or an actual strike? In such an environment, even minor misjudgments can spiral into broader confrontations, especially under nationalistic political pressures in both capitals.
Revolution in Military Affairs: A Doctrinal Shift
The emergence of drones as a decisive element in the India-Pakistan military equation underscores the principles of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). Stephen Biddle in Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle (2004) highlights that innovations in military doctrine and technology—such as precision-guided munitions, networked warfare, and unmanned systems—can fundamentally alter the nature of combat. This doctrinal revolution is vividly apparent in both Indian and Pakistani military strategies.
For India, the integration of Israeli Heron and Harop drones, and the US-supplied MQ-9B Predators, allows for 24/7 surveillance, deep-strike capabilities, and strategic interdiction. The Heron’s high-altitude endurance and the Harop’s loitering munition capacity mark a substantial upgrade in India’s ability to conduct offensive and pre-emptive operations. Meanwhile, the concept of “swarm drones,” capable of overwhelming enemy radar systems and saturating defenses, marks a leap toward autonomous, AI-driven warfare.
Pakistan’s drone capabilities—anchored by platforms like Bayraktar and Shahpar—enable it to retaliate asymmetrically and maintain surveillance over sensitive Indian positions. The deployment of such systems not only reflects a strategic shift but also reduces reliance on costly manned aircraft, thereby enabling persistent engagement without risking pilot casualties. In this RMA context, both sides are transitioning from static defense postures to dynamic, technology-intensive military doctrines.
Constructivist Security and the Norms of Automated Warfare
While realism and RMA explain material shifts, Constructivist Security Theory—as articulated by scholars such as Alexander Wendt in Social Theory of International Politics (1999)—provides insights into how evolving norms and identities are reshaping perceptions of threat and legitimacy in warfare. The normalization of drone warfare is gradually altering what constitutes an acceptable act of war between India and Pakistan.
In the past, artillery exchanges and cross-border skirmishes followed a predictable script, allowing for calibrated retaliation. In contrast, drone strikes occupy an ambiguous ethical and legal space. Their deployment signifies not only technological progress but also a normative transformation in how conflict is initiated, perceived, and justified. The increasing acceptance of “invisible” warfare—without boots on the ground or traditional battle formations—erodes long-standing taboos surrounding escalation and sovereignty violations.
Furthermore, the silent and remote nature of drone warfare dilutes the political costs of aggression. Leaders can authorize lethal action without directly exposing their militaries, thereby lowering the threshold for engagement. This shift redefines the very ontology of war in South Asia, where sovereignty, territory, and threat perception are increasingly mediated by algorithms, GPS coordinates, and machine learning.
Strategic Implications and Global Reverberations
The growing centrality of drones in South Asian security has several far-reaching consequences:
Doctrinal Ambiguity and Crisis Instability: The blurred line between surveillance and offensive action introduces ambiguity, making it difficult for decision-makers to interpret adversary intentions. This undermines strategic stability and complicates crisis management efforts.
Deterrence Paradox: While drones may enhance deterrence by increasing the cost of aggression, they also create a false sense of invincibility, potentially encouraging risk-prone behavior. This deterrence paradox is particularly dangerous in nuclearized dyads like India and Pakistan.
Proliferation Concerns: As both states demonstrate the utility of drones, non-state actors and smaller regional powers may seek to emulate their strategies. This could lead to horizontal proliferation and the diffusion of high-tech capabilities into unstable hands, further destabilizing the subcontinent.
Geopolitical Realignment: India’s drone partnership with the United States reflects broader Indo-Pacific strategic dynamics. It signals India’s intent to position itself as a high-tech regional power aligned with Western military ecosystems. Conversely, Pakistan’s tilt toward Chinese and Turkish drone suppliers reaffirms its Eastern strategic orientation, potentially deepening South Asia’s role as a theater in great power competition.
Conclusion
The recent episode involving drone and missile exchanges between India and Pakistan marks not merely a tactical escalation but a paradigmatic shift in South Asian security politics. Understood through the prisms of Offensive Realism, Security Dilemma Theory, the Revolution in Military Affairs, and Constructivist Security Theory, the advent of drone warfare has introduced new forms of strategic complexity, operational ambiguity, and normative uncertainty.
In this evolving landscape, where battles may be waged by “mechanical birds” operating beyond human eyesight and across contested borders, traditional approaches to deterrence, diplomacy, and conflict resolution must be recalibrated. The silent skies over Kashmir may soon echo with louder consequences if these unmanned systems continue to define the rules of war without parallel efforts at political and diplomatic restraint.
