A country of 210 million people isn't "small" by any stretch of the imagination.
I told you how the US looks at Pakistan. Had it not been due to two conflicts back to back, really, what exactly has Pakistan offered to the world outside of problems and military dictatorships?? Which resulted in many more problems for Pakistanis, including children who were given machine guns back in Gen. Zia's dictatorship. Yes, we worked with him because we needed him (answering your future post you'd write to forget about everything else I wrote on here).
But arming College going children in a to be a-very-moderate, forward looking Pakistan of its time (better than South Korea back then) turned your country's culture into an intense, extremist like culture which then gave way to real extremism. Can you count how many young men and high school going children have been killed in places like Karachi due to that decision of arming them? So truthfully, the US appoints three people to oversee Pakistan. It doesn't matter if you have 200 million people or 500 million.
At the end of the day, you haven't produced anything for the world to consume (like Israeli tech, Indian IT and medical labor in large numbers, Chinese products, Malaysian semiconductors, Turkish tourism and tech). I am not writing this to sound arrogant. I am showing you my displeasure of what you guys have made out of your nation, which I know, has a ton of talent!
So instead of worrying about your population size, create political stability, and produce something, your nation is very talented but its been rotten up by military coupe's and the fake myth that civilians are dumb and stupid and can't grow trees, let alone run a country.
There is no nation on this planet that can say "we grew economically because we were ruled by the military". Corruption and all that stuff is everywhere, you need a stable political system to grow your country, and the economy and produce products that the world will consume and will know that "made in Pakistan" means something.
I know many won't like my statement, but I am speaking of the reality sadly.
So u r viewing this missile test in context of McCain's statement? U think Pakistan is flexing its military muscle to say "we r parepared for the worst"(to quote u). U didn't mention what that "worst" is. This "worst" is not sanctions or end of US aid or breaking of diplomatic ties or a trade embargo bcuz none of those can be countered by flexing military muscle.
So the "worst" u r suggesting in light of flexing military muscle only leaves a few options all of which involve some kind of military confrontation...and since US is the most powerful country in the world no country with the exception of maybe Russia and China can militarily stand up to US. Hence any such show of military might is pointless.
So again I don't see what that show of might to the US would achieve. When US launched its WoT it basically told Musharraf either u r with us or against us and guess how the Pak military responded? Certainly not by a show of force to say "we r prepared for the worst". Therefore I don't think these missile tests are a response to McCain's statement...it's just simply a test to check for the improved performance and new parameters just like how many other nations do it. The timing was most likely a coincidence.
Reading your statement, I think you know very well what the "worst" has always been in Pakistani military's minds. If you don't remember the history, go back to Gen. Kiyani's statement he made after that check post incident. But something tells me you know exactly what the "worst case" means.