This is not a good thing.
I dunno.
dudalb's thread title says "airstrikes on Pakistan", but it's not like India struck at Pakistani armed forces, or their national command and control infrastructure, or anything else close to the military or political apparatus. Their target were insurgent groups that even the Pakistani government denies responsibility for. It's a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, certainly. But taking out deniable paramilitary forces isn't necessarily a net negative even in this context.
In 1999, Pakistani troops crossed the border into India, resulting in heavy fighting between the actual armed forces of the two nations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
And yet as we see, the situation did not become "very serious very fast". In fact, given the extent of Pakistan's sponsoring of anti-Indian insurgency over the years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India–Pakistan_relations#Wars,_conflicts_and_disputes
It seems that this airstrike is both remarkably restrained and long overdue. Airstrikes against insurgencies seems to be widely regarded as a cromulent and effective remedy in Syria and elsewhere. I'm in need of more convincing that it's not a good thing here, all things considered.
This is a serious matter, but I am pushing back against dudalb's drift into "sky is falling" territory. I'm also pushing back against the idea that it's not a good thing to strike insurgents where they are found, even if it means occasionally violating Pakistani airspace.
