OK, a classic statement of doctrine:
that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons,
Case 1: Chechen sistahs experience vacuum burst inside Moscow Cinema theater. Once.
No reaction possible, and no deterrence.
Case 2: Chechen sistahs (or SOMEONE) experience vacuum bursts in Moscow, St. Peterburg, Vladivostok, and 20 other cities (I know a lot of Soviet city names, but not sure any more if they are in Russia). Any deterrence?
Case 3: Airliner brought down on top of Kremlin when the top leadership is in session. Most of the leadership "retires to go on vacation" per Pravda. Pakistani-trained Saudi"hotel management students" with 3 weeks of flying lessons in Ukraine found to be the perpetrators (fedayeen), with airport in Georgia being the launching point. Any deterrence?
Case 4: Russian-Ukrainian riots, Russian-Georgian riots, Russian-Chechnyan riots, riots inside Moscow, St. Petersburg, and 20 other cities threaten Russian integrity. Any deterrence?
Case 5: Georgian and Ukrainian troops cross respective borders to protect ethnic populations undergoing pogroms. Russian military is in serious crisis, 40% locked down due to suspect loyalties following decapitation strike in Moscow (see airliner event). Will Russia use nukes against Georgia and Ukraine?
This is the shape of "modern war" that threatens to break down "rational" nations.
Of course there is only one solution.
"(NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer) underscored that in this war Pakistan is a part of the solution
and this fact is always acknowledged by NATO," Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement."
IOW, Give Peace A Chance. Destroy Pakistan's Army
The only real deterrence is a demonstration
that "rational" countries will also act decisively to "solve the problem". Not by bombing a border post, but by sending that B-1 bomber and 2 F-15 escorts a bit deeper (about 30 minutes east-southeast). With laser-guided bombs. And THEN back it up with nuclear deterrence to any Honor and Dignity reactions.
My take is that if this is demonstrated on Pakistan, other dictators will be a bit less willing to try misadventures. Immediate counter-example, I know, will be "What about Eyerak" Answer is obvious: If Dubya had stopped with a few airstrikes in downtown Baghdad, regardless of the outcome of "decapitation strikes", Iraq might today be a Bissful, exemplary Moderate Islamic Secular Enlightened State. The idiocy was in sending in ground troops and trying to micromanage a "Japan replication" without global support (would have failed even with global support).
IOW, here is a proposition to those who argue that a nuclear test today will not result in sanctions of unacceptable pain. Why not extend that thinking to what would happen if the Pakistan Army leadership
were hit very hard for each terrorist strike inside India, with a backup warning that any escalation will be treated as an act of total war?
Of course this will require an evacuation and major renovations inside Dilli, plus an extensive air defense system. It may reduce the rush to win party elections to cabinet posts as well. But why not seriously analyze the costs of this strategy, maybe in another thread? The very existence of such a thread, I submit, will do a lot of good in inducing better behavior in certain places.