Err.. not quite. how is it worse? Since you are indulging in semantics here, is 100% greater than say 30%? So a 180 million loss is a win or a loss for the 180 million killed? There will still be Indians standing, so would it count as a win?
.
Not obvious to me. Pakistan would have to have 6 times as many nuclear weapons & all must survive the first Indian retaliation to inflict serious damage. If that be the argument, then the "NASR" philosophy takes a walk. If India responds with a massive nuclear attack to a "NASR" attack which is limited to the battlefield , India's loss might well remain at the initial battlefield loss. You do realise, unlike many Pakistanis here that it is not one missile for a city that would be the norm. You would need multiple attacks on a single city to even have a chance of success. Even with the best case scenario(from a Pakistani perspective), they have just about enough bombs to attempt attacks on less than 10 major targets. Therefore the concept of "NASR" goes our of the window if the resulting Indian response might knock out many of those weapons. Survivability might still be ensured but an attack after a massive first strike will be a limited one, not massive as you seem to believe.