Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
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.
MAD is strategic nukes and they have several disadvantages. They are ICBMs and launching of them have a host of issues: other nuclear powers misunderstanding the strike, weapon blowing up in its silo or over friendly territory, inaccuracy (whole point of MIRVs is saturation).

Modern tactical nukes are more powerful then then ones used against Japan. They can be delivered more accurately via bomber using bombs or cruise missile. They are used on relatively safe to launch and tested tech vs ICBMs.

Also personally I don't see the difference in killing people with conventional vs nuclear. Iraq number of dead is greater then nukes. A scaled up war with a Caliphate would be in the multiple of millions... When things get to that scale and western cities get hit with mass casualties greater then 9/11 I can't see nukes not being considered. Deployed doubtful but it would be on an ROI basis just like invading Japan or nuking it was.