Multiple logical fallacies in your comment. You can go through a list of them on Wikipedia and see which ones apply
My argument is not weak at all.
There are a finite amount of resources --- particularly financial --- in the overall Army-led defense apparatus (ISI, SPD, etc.). That means it is both fair and legitimate to compare two options of where that money (and general priorities) should go --- especially for a cash-strapped country.
An ICBM that won't create any meaningful deterrence (deterrence isn't created by the possession of a handful of relatively basic (non hypersonic) long-range ballistic missiles against a goddamn superpower
VS.
capacities that will actively deter our aggressive neighbor (responsible for backing groups that constantly kill our citizens) is a fair and logically sound comparison.
My comment was one of priority. If you are starving, you probably want food first to ensure your present security VS fantasizing about capabilities against someone a few blocks down who you (wrongly) think will be deterred by an ICBM.
Happy to engage with you further --- I've studied this stuff for a decade so I look forward to your comments. Hopefully they will be more productive and less engaging