Warfare, in the most simplistic definition, is based on the two premises of ‘offense’ and ‘defense.’ During all the battle stages, a dynamic environment is subject to friction, or what in military parlance is known as factors of chance—the probability that a plan may not go as planned.

Despite the passage of time and space, our initial precepts of offense and defense remain eternally attached to warfare. In warfare’s history, we witness a variety of strategies applied by city-states, empires, and great powers. Observing them closely shows that all successful powers played to their strengths.

Modern hypersonic missiles like Russia’s Oreshnik demonstrate speeds and precision that no defensive system can counter effectively.

After all, the ultimate aim of warfare is to dominate the will of the adversary, a goal that can only be achieved through superior maneuverability, which in turn is only possible if one plays to their strengths—on air, land, and sea—whatever the domain may be.

With the modernization of warfare, kinetic gains have surpassed all other elements of evolution. Modern ballistic and hypersonic missiles, which serve as strike weapons, have reached a level of precision and speed that no defensive instruments can potentially counter. Russia demonstrated to the West and the world at large the seriousness of its strategic missiles.

The battlefield use of Oreshnik IRBM by Russia in Ukraine has left military experts around the world in awe. The video footage unequivocally demonstrates the direct impacts of the Multiple Independently Targetable Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs) on a military installation in Dnipro, providing ample empirical evidence that modern missiles are impossible to intercept in the near future, if at all.

At impact, the missile reached a speed of Mach 11, which is eleven times the speed of sound. That is roughly 3,300 meters or 3.3 kilometers per second. No modern-day interceptor is capable of defending against strike weapons possessing such kinetic energy. Data from the Kiel Report also substantiate the bleak future for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems.

According to the Ukrainian reports, the interception rates of Kinzhal and Zircon missiles are 25%, meaning that 3 out of 4 of these missiles successfully evade interception. The report also claims that a single advanced hypersonic missile—perhaps referring to the likes of Oreshnik or the Avangard glide vehicle—merits a salvo of 32 Patriot launchers all fired simultaneously. Each launcher, moreover, has 4 interceptor missiles. This results in a total of 128 interceptors, with the sole aim of intercepting only one advanced hypersonic missile.

Empirical data reveal that interception rates for advanced hypersonic missiles remain as low as 25%.

The concept of missile defense appears absurd when considering its cost. Leading many to believe, is the investment in BMD systems worth it. It is becoming clearer, as warfare evolves, that superior kinetic energy aided with even greater maneuverability in the hypersonic missiles is, to a large extent, not defensible.

The use of Oreshnik bolstered Russia’s offensive deterrence posture. Russia’s nuclear doctrine does not outline a decapitating first-strike strategy, however. Yet the fact that Russia possesses advanced strike weapons bolsters what one may term as its offensive-defense capability—the ability to deter an adversary through the promise of a punitive response resulting in massive destruction.

Moreover, Russia’s vast territory and its historical success in repelling occupation forces may not give it any substantial impetus to focus on defensive deterrence; instead, it seems Russia is trying to leverage its adversaries’ fears of mass destruction.

In particular, Europe should have much to worry about, as its relatively smaller size and higher population density make for a terrible place to be in the face of a few dozen nuclear or a few hundred conventional advanced missiles equipped with MIRVs, raining down inferno at unimaginable speeds. The only thing Europe or any other target can be sure about is that their defense mechanisms, the BMDs, may not protect them.

Just in October, most of the Iranian missile strikes on Israel managed to bypass Israeli and the US defensive systems, although the ones used by Iran are substantially less advanced than the ones fielded by Russia. Russia can even have a more advanced inventory of ballistic missiles than the Oreshnik, which they have yet to decide to showcase. Worsening the odds even further.

The cost of maintaining BMD systems far outweighs their credibility against superior offensive strike weapons.

In short, BMD interceptor tests by nations such as the US, which are often heavily scripted, have shown their lack of credibility in the face of strategic strike weapons. Furthermore, the empirical evidence we’ve received over the past two to three years supports the claim that offensive strike weapons, particularly at the strategic level where state survival is at risk, hold the future. Defensive deterrence elements, like BMDs, are falling short of the weapons they intended to counter.

These arguments aptly fit the Indo-Pak strategic equation as well. India is rapidly advancing in the realm of ballistic missiles and has been flirting with the idea of adding hypersonic glide vehicles and cruise missiles to its arsenal. Pakistan does not have a credible defense against such weapons. In fact, not a single other country possesses such weapons.

It is not Pakistan’s lack of advanced BMD systems that is worrying; rather, it is the non-credibility of such a system as a whole, making it an unreliable pillar of defense to rely on. Therefore, as a sound response to these developments, Pakistan may need to acquire more advanced and sophisticated strike weapons.

Pakistan’s strategic stability depends on advancing its offensive deterrence with hypersonic and MIRV-capable missiles, not unreliable BMD systems.

Pakistan already possesses a MIRV-capable ballistic missile, the Ababeel. Pakistan can continue to enhance this missile through research and development efforts. Second, Pakistan may opt for advanced hypersonic glide vehicles to substantiate its offensive capabilities, giving it a better chance to defeat the Indian BMDs.

The realm of strike weapons is both well-researched and cost-effective as compared to BMD systems, providing Pakistan with relatively better prospects of acquiring them and thus allowing it to bolster its deterrence posture and maintain strategic stability in the region.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.