that would certainly have changed after 26/11- had Pakistan not achieved the nuclear deterrence-
there was a cry of nuking Pakistan in 98 aswell just after their nuclear tests-
But the tests changed that.. there was NO demand after 26/11..
The demand for nuking us was made through the propoganda channels.. and less through public perception.
Where does that fit into today?
Both nations have the nukes, both have mechanisms for them..
But for all their worth they haven't actually "saved" us..
We are losing more and more to the conventional side of warfare..
The nukes have served less as a deterrent, and more as a curtain from behind which "misadventures" can be undertaken.
The whole idea of the nuclear deterrent in the cold war for eg.. was to let the Soviets know that if they crossed a boundary.. all hell would break loose.
Which is why it never went hot.. which is why NATO was able to relax about the fact that its lack of being able to match the soviets tank for tank as a preventive measure may be made up by the fact that they would be nuked if they crossed the line.
Can we say the same?
Our nuclear assets were best used as an ultimatum of not crossing the line...while we focused on building ourselves into a robust economy and united society behind it.
Instead they served as a curtain(a fake one as proved by the OBL raid) from which we let our snakes run rampant. That is the perception to the world.
The nukes are a deterrent to be pledged for use when declared conditions are met.
ours are behind some ambiguous strategy that does not even define when we intend to use it.