1. "Purely from the operational point of view, in the context of terrorism, the target and victim are separate entities and destruction of the victim is intended to send a message to the target. But with the fallout from the use of nuclear weapons, the separation will be difficult to sustain," Mazari said."
Mazari is claiming, in a very dispassionate manner, that terrorists seek to terrorize civilians but their ultimate targets are non-civilian actors. I disagree and Mazari should know better. Terrorists and militants are remarkably aimless and frustrated. They do not distinguish between civilians and non-civilians and therefore, a weapon of mass destruction would be of great value to them.
2. "Terrorists are on the move and have a mobile strategic doctrine. Nuclear weapons are not like guns or other small conventional arms that can simply be carried around endlessly," she said."
Terrorists may be mobile, and so are nuclear devices. Mazari should look at her country's record and especially the underground network built by A.Q. Khan to procure nuclear devices as evidence. Combine those security holes and weak export-import controls with an general/scientist sympathetic to the terrorists's cause and you have the elements for a mushroom cloud.
"She said if compared to Asian countries it is Russia [Images] and the US who have met with nuclear accidents. She even praised India's record of nuclear safety."
