Given the nature of both Iran and North Korea, does anybody think they will lessen their support for terrorism if they have nuclear weapons? Nuclear-armed and terrorist-supporting Pakistan should not be in their body of evidence:
Pakistan continues to deny these government links to Islamic terrorists, even though it is an open secret inside Pakistan and a growing body of evidence confirms the continuing links and support. The Pakistani generals apparently feel that the presence of nuclear weapons makes Indian threats of war (to halt the growing border violence) meaningless.
Rather than deterring Indian invasion (which Pakistani poverty and dysfunction already achieve), Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is viewed as a license to kill. Pakistan is saying, "Just what are you going to do about our support for terrorism, India?"
It's the regime, stupid. Bloody-minded regimes will continue to be bloody-minded regimes. And nuclear weapons will just give them the confidence that they can get away with higher levels of violence because of their ability to threaten the use of nuclear weapons if an enemy responds to their terror campaigns.
We do try to reduce Pakistan's support for terrorists. But we need Pakistan for access to Afghanistan. Yet India can be excused for not thinking that our (not fully successful) focus on reducing support for terrorists who target us is good enough when Pakistan keeps supporting terrorists who target India.
Pakistan should understand that just as their nuclear weapons can deter India from responding at too high a level without risking a spiraling crisis that leads to nuclear war, India's nuclear weapons give them room to respond with more force that Pakistan will nave to accept if they don't want to risk a spiraling crisis that leads to nuclear war.
Focusing on weapons used is always a mistake when it is the bloody-minded rulers that are the real problem. Yet as Syria shows, we don't get it. Is Assad really less lethal without access temporarily to his chemical weapons?
