Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
Probably not, the likeliness of conventional conflict between the two would be much greater – nuclear weapons have deterred that.
Well if the two are intent on making war let it be of a non-nuclear conventional nature. The 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff was close enough to having a few nucs tossed around the sub-continent for anyones liking. I know they have had a good few shots at military action against India but do Pakistan really think they will ever have a chance of victory? A people who still reach for the sword when it is obvious they can't win should not be in possession of a nuclear weapon.

The Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons was a cost of our partnership with the Government of Pakistan in countering and rolling-back the Soviet Union. We could have stopped its development had we chosen to, but it was the cost of doing business. Renegade scientists are an unintended consequence of this.
That was a big mistake then. Not the first made with regard to nuclear weapons and not the last.

I am sure similar arguments were used against those who were in opposition to the devils-deal described above, which caused the unintended consequences you lament today.
I put it down to the "everything is negotiable" attitude of the West (primarily the US). When you get down to that level the possible unintended consequences are not even considered.