Missile Might: Claims and Counterclaims in Conflict

The recent India-Pakistan conflict has not only reignited tensions but also sparked a global debate over the efficacy of arms supplied by major powers. From the BrahMos missile to the S-400 system, the battlefield has become a testing ground for weapons, with each side eager to prove its superiority. This phenomenon underscores how geopolitical rivalries often play out through proxy comparisons of military hardware, as if the world had been waiting for a war to validate its arsenals.

The BrahMos missile, a joint Indo-Russian venture, has been at the centre of political posturing in India. While the BJP government celebrates its success in Operation Sindoor, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has been quick to remind the public of the UPA’s role in its development. This tussle for credit reveals a deeper truth: weapons are not just tools of war but also symbols of national pride and political legacy. The BrahMos, with its supersonic speed and precision, has become a trophy for both parties, each eager to claim a slice of its glory.

Meanwhile, the S-400 air defence system, procured from Russia, has been another focal point. India’s deployment of the S-400 has been touted as a game-changer, with claims of its ability to neutralise incoming threats from Pakistan. However, sceptics argue that real-world performance often diverges from laboratory results. Some Western media reports highlight how Pakistan’s use of Turkish and Chinese drones has challenged the S-400’s supposed invincibility, raising questions about the system’s adaptability to modern warfare tactics.

The conflict has also exposed the global arms race’s absurdity. Nations rush to showcase their weapons, as if war were a trade fair where the most advanced technology wins the day. The U.S. praises its F-16s, Russia flaunts the S-400, China promotes its drones, and Turkey enters the fray with its Bayraktar TB2. Each claim is met with a counterclaim, turning the battlefield into a propaganda stage.

In this cacophony, the human cost of war is often overshadowed. The focus on weaponry detracts from the urgent need for diplomacy and de-escalation. While missiles and drones may dominate headlines, it is the lives lost and the communities shattered that truly matter. The world must not forget that behind every weapon’s “success” lies a story of destruction.

As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the obsession with comparing arms reveals more about our fixation on power than about the weapons themselves. The real test is not which missile flies faster or which system intercepts more, but how nations can move beyond conflict to forge a stable peace. Until then, the claims and counterclaims will continue, echoing the age-old adage that in war, truth is the first casualty.