attack on infantry camps in battle zone like j&k have got nothing to do with nuclear security.
On the other hand, more incidents of violence and higher casualties show that Pakistan gov't despite having to manage a smaller country is doing a poorer job.
Again, attacks on military installations have to be planned and executed with near perfection. If this can be done on some Army base, then following that logic it can be done on any nuclear facility.
Attacks on civilians are not the same thing, a suicide bomber can plan an attack one day before, walk into a random town and detonate his vest. A military installation requires stockpiling of weapons and equipment, monitoring of the area, memorizing security numbers, patrols, layout etc.
total casualties of an attack in either scenario could be:
Scenario 1 - hundreds of civilians
Scenario 2 - dozens of soldiers
Now can you honestly tell me that an attack on civilians is more unsafe for nuclear security than an attack on a military base?
Also, Pakistan is not a small country, and the military is doing a phenomenal job. Look at those statistic you posted again, 2 years back deaths were 5000+, but they have significantly dropped to around 1700. Meanwhile in India the number of deaths has increased.
difference between 2015 to 2016:
number of deaths -
India = +135
Pakistan= -1,912
So as per your logic, the security situation in India is worsening, meaning the risk of nukes falling to terrorists is increasing more in India and decreasing in Pakistan
