Disagree.
That is neither logical nor credible. Faced with the options that a potential target MAY respond to an attack, or WILL respond to an attack, which is the more likely to make an aggressor think twice?
In the case of nuclear, it's equivalent, since you don't know and the damage of guessing wrong is prohibitive.
If other sorts of nastiness, the risk of being wrong doesn't exact the same price.
You can't demonstrate with complete certainty that "you will use nukes" without actually using them or so demonstrating. Any assertion is political rhetoric/speech, and must be treated as such (because that's the level at which this whole thing operates). What adds credibility to your deterrent is having systems that work, and that are known to work.
Why would anyone go to the expense of making and maintaining them if you won't use them under at least one circumstance, if not a variety of scenarios?
Will use? Certainty?
The only people who have used nukes are the US in 1945
before the deterrence game was even begun. Thus, from your expressed point of view, nobody has a credible deterrent (to achieve your absurd credibility standard) other than the US ... who has used two.
We both know that isn't how nuclear deterrence works.
As to any advantage Saddam's uncertainty provided, that didn't seem to work, now did it?
