The new
US Nuclear Posture Review includes a pretty scary program: the idea to create modern tactical nukes, in the 20kT range. The motivation for this is the claim that since the destructive power of strategic nuclear weapons is so immense, other countries could think that the US would never use them, leading to the loss of the nuclear deterrence. So, to reinforce the deterrence, US should create modern, cruise missile fitting tactical nuclear warheads, that could be used in battlefield conditions.
This isn't a new idea at all, it has been floated ever since the late 1940s. The inherent risk in it is that it relies completely on the untested and, frankly unrealistic assumption that a nuclear escalation could be stopped. If the situation is such that a tactical nuke could justifiable be used, it is ridiculous to think that the other side would then happily stick to the same.
America: "Oh, Russia is taking over country X using chemical weapons. Since our WMD doctrine equates all types of NBC weaponry, we'll respond with a cruise missile carrying a 20kT warhead against the airbase their poison planes are taking off from"
BOOM
Russia: "Americans nuked our airbase. Fine, let's shoot a single R-36 Satan with its 40 warheads to take out forty American bases"
BOOM x40
America: "Russians nuked us! We must eliminate their missile capability. Shoot Tridents and Minutemen at all known Russian nuclear silos!"
Russia: "American full strike incoming! Launch everything!"
Cockroaches: "We rule the planet now"
Well, that is an exaggeration but seriously, there is nothing logical about expecting a nuclear weapon exchange to NOT escalate to full strategic strikes. When the first nuke is used, the other side must retaliate in kind. It's the whole basis for Mutually Assured Destruction.
Hopefully Democrats can take over Congress sufficiently that they can stop it. Not to mention that it's a total waste of money.