It is not a matter of number. In 1980s nukes had a terrible PR and were seen not only as weapons against enemies, but also against nature, Mother Earth and pretty much all mankind. In this moment I'm talking only about Soviets nuking Afghanis, of course.
I still respectfully disagree with a thesis that more frequent (i.e. any) usage of nukes in 1950s would make them more "acceptable" as a mean to an end. The opposite, IMHO. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were enough to give nukes very bad name IOTL. More of them would make that extremely negative picture even worse.
I might agree that in early 1950s nukes might been used against military targets in an open conflict between states, although I still have my doubts about it. Nukes in an anti-colonial conflict... No. I already put practical reasons in my previous posts.
BTW, perhaps we could establish what we understand as "insurgency" - because people here mentioned already Korea (which was open, "conventional" conflict), hypothetical Cuban tank raid against South Africa (which would be also "conventional" conflict), civil war in China (IIRC Mao's army in late 1940s often fought conventional, open battles against KMT).