[99052882514569]

I don't see how normalizing or not normalizing it will have any effect whatsoever on its proliferation. No country acquires nuclear weapons to actually use them. Instead, it is (rightly) viewed as a great deterrent/insurance against being invaded and overrun.

[michaelt]

During the cold war, it was much debated whether 'limited nuclear war' was possible - for example, if Soviet tanks entered France and France used only small nuclear shells, only those smaller than a large conventional munition, only against military targets and only within their own borders; would that inevitably trigger an escalation to mutually assured destruction or not?

People who thought it would be tremendously convenient [0] if limited nuclear war was possible generally wanted to remove the taboo between large conventional explosions and small nuclear explosions, and so would support programs like the US "Project Plowshare" [1] and the Soviet "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy" [2] which used nuclear weapons for mining and civil engineering.

With that said, one might very well argue that we are no longer in the cold war, and that our policies no longer need to be guided by the prospect of Soviet tanks entering France. And whether a once-per-decade reminder explosion would erode or enhance the taboo against their use in war.

[0] The WW2 Red Army had fielded more troops than the entire male population of France so France could not win a conventional war. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat...

[rtkwe]

That requires an intention to use them first against that invading nation.

[rtkwe]

Also this use would likely not be against the invading forces themselves because you'd be contaminating your own land so the use of nukes as protection against conquest requires not only the willingness to use them first but to use them on your enemy's homeland, likely military industrial targets which will also hit civilians.

[99052882514569]

That's immaterial, because your potential adversary isn't going to want to find out what your nuclear rules of engagement really are. Possessing nuclear weapons raises the threshold for putting the invasion on the table quite dramatically. And if there is a war, nuclear weapons limit its scope quite quickly.

Just think of how many Indian and Pakistani lives have been saved because the two countries stepped back when shit was about to get real. Like, three times now. All because of nukes. Unless one of them truly commits to invading and losing millions of lives, their wars are guaranteed to peter out as border skirmishes.