It is a mistake to think that Paki generals are not rational. They are rational. Hitler, except maybe in the latter years of WW2 was rational. He was evil, but he was rational. Likewise Pak generals from our perspective are evil, but they are rational. it's just that they have different payoffs from us. Their payoffs are credibility and glory to the Islamic 'Ummah'. That is what they crave. They want recognition and glory in being at the forefront of the fight against the idol worshippers. If we understand this, then it means that we can predict their behaviour in certain scenarios, and hence from the point of view of Game theory, they are rational. Our challenge is to manage their payoffs without achieving negative payoffs for ourselves.
I said they are irrational if they ever launch their nukes. Its not a matter of evil, thats just relative and frankly immaterial.
There is nothing to suggest that the Paki elite would care for any religious Umma or whatever, self and national interest comes above all else. Sacrificing self for religion is for foot soldiers, not for elites. They send others to blow themselves, not do it themselves.
The assumption that they are driven by some religious goal is simply flawed in my opinion. Thus, any deterrent based on that flawed assumption would be a disaster.
Second, any posturing, be it real or bluff has to be credible, I.e believable. Attacking and destroying the world is not a believable position that we can take. Even nuclear attacking China, just because of Pakistan, maybe stretching credibility. We can as Tarun says adopt the possibility of being seen as a bit crazy Hindhus, like crazy isrealis and threatening Armageddon on the Ummah, for the actions of the Pak generals. I am not sure I agree with this approach. But I do think it is a credible bluff. It will have the effect of scaring the Ummah, and hence leading to criticism of the Pak generals from those that they most wish to impress.
Footnote added later. 'Rational' is a Game theory concept. you cannot use game theory against an opponent that is completely irrational, without motivations and hence entirely unpredicatibale. Paki generals have set motivations, I.e Payoffs, and so are predictable.
Obviously, we currently wouldn't seem credible if our posture was destruction of the world or those who have helped the retards who actually launch nukes at present. I stated as much. Thus, my line about developing capacity to target anywhere in the world with long range ICBM and SLBM with MIRV.
We have sufficient ability to destroy Pak and China at the least or set the later back irrevocably for their enemies to march in. For the world, we need more, I only hope we are making rapid progress. China comes in to the equation for being Pak's current sugar daddy and using them as a proxy against us. They seem to have the most control and are a nation that we can harm significantly even with our current capability.
The distinction in our approaches - you consider someone who launches nukes first at a nation that can destroy you as rational, thus, you wish to depend on them and some sense of religious glorification for deterrence.
I see that as a mistake compounded by an even worse one.
Again, I don't see any of this as really enough to deter Paki retards, only their balkanization ever would.