Let's talk about the nukes

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a pretty mean comment to make about Abrams tanks, especially considering they got your Chobham, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-X4BNAtu4

I agree though that tactical nukes seem like a bit much. You take out a "Chobham tank" using a missile and there are plenty of those in the US arsenal, they may already have dropped plenty of LGBs onto them, that also does the trick.

Well, bear in mind that even the American Abrams has inferior armour than what's on the modern British tanks. Abrams armour is the same on that used on British tanks 30 years ago whilst the armour on modern British tanks is only about 20 years old.

I'm not talking about using them on armour.

I'm talking 30k plus dead due to a terrorist attack on a large city think sarin or dirty bomb. With more to come.

Would the present powers do a Dresden and would they use waves of bombers and drones with conventional fire bombs or cut the chase and use Hiroshima scale nukes to stop ISIS?

This is, per definition, the strategic use of nuclear weapons. You would not use the tactical nukes for this sort of thing, you would use a single smaller strategic nuke to flatten the city.

In a scenario where IS has access to weapons of mass destruction (and use them) then the US etc. would consider the use of strategic nuclear weapons as a retaliatory move. However, it's highly unlikely they would do it because then you lose the moral high ground, having declared nuclear war on someone.

I already made this point in post #4, so you clearly didn't read it and just repeated yourself hoping to incite a different answer.

-1 Internets.