Gen, apologies if the tone came across as harsh, but your repeated use of an outdated trope, and assumptions/assertions that don't fit the year 2015, evoked comment. I know (and you know) how the old model of deterrence was constructed. The world has changed, including deterrence and (which you acknowledge) the perception element. To be clear, we agree on the importance of perception.
What does the object of deterrence believe? That applies to conventional as well as nuclear models of that tool.
As another thought experiment for you, consider the deterrent as applied by the Israelis -- it doesn't fit the narrow confines of your assertions as posted.
Neither does that of the NorKors.
And no, you don't get where I'm coming from.
PS: Apologies to all for staying in thread longer than intended, but I suppose deterrence ends up being an alliance thing, not just a given nation's thing ... Charles De Gaulle's point considered.