[gumby]

This was not considered "strategic" decision making back in the 80s, but I see your point. I do think it's good the US junked its tactical nuke programs (Davy Crocket et al) because they are tricky and hard to find good use cases for. They are also hard not to lose (most people don't realize how many portable things get lost in combat).

Allegedly Russia has various "red lines" which, when crossed would lead to tactical nukes in the Ukraine theatre. Many of those lines have been crossed with no nuke use. Prof Phillips P. OBrien pointed out that tactical nukes at this point would be an admission of weakness and would turn many allies against Russia. Also, like chemical weapons, they are simply hard to use without interfering with your own troops. Probably, IMO, the only use case is on day 0 right at the initial invasion.

The US has a wide range of non-weaponry responses, and who knows what they have in their subs, They may have smaller scale nukes as well. Subs are destabilizing today because nobody knows where they are. They used to be destabilizing because that also meant they were inaccurate (thus only useful against cities, where, like the game of horseshoes, "close" is good enough). Nowadays once they are launched they can use GPS, the stars, and probably simply vision since they know the approximate launch and destination locations.

You're currently getting downvoted which seems unreasonable.