Here’s the thing, with our nuclear capability – or Russia’s, and others – nobody will “dictate terms” to us. That does not mean that nuclear weapons don’t enter the picture. But, the whole idea of nuclear weapons as leverage goes out the window when you start projecting casualty counts. Rational people tend to get queasy. However, even large nations have strategies for knocking out each others nuclear assets. Generally speaking, submarines, some bombers, and some missiles will make it.
“Deterrence” always assumes, of course, that you aren’t already going up the escalation chain. Conventional war, city bombing, tactical nuke employed, etc… Then, things take on a life of their own.
I would argue that if the US really wanted to invade a small nuclear nation we would use various means to destroy their nuclear arsenal before the nation even knew they were at war. Probably bombers, missiles, and bombers with missiles. So, we’d defang Pakistan, go in with guns blazing, overthrow Musharraf, and look like idiots.
Nor did the tribal areas invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, oppress the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, put hundreds of thousands in mass graves, or work on various WMD programs for decades.
The “enraging the locals” thing is far overblown in Iraq.
If you read the information coming out of Iraq, Iraqis themselves are sure most of the attacks are being carried out by foreigners. The attacks kill mostly Iraqis, and are carried out in areas to maximize civilian casualties.
The latest al Qaeda strategy is to kill Shia and pin it on the Sunnis.
What good Muslims they are.
So, anyway, point being – the US cares a hell of a lot more for the locals than the previous Iraqi government, or the so-called resistance.
OTOH, we can’t get out of there soon enough for me. The “occupation” will work best that works least. But, without adequate security and a clampdown on al Qaeda, lots more innocent people will die – despite, not because of the best efforts of the United States.
