[grey_whiskers]

Agreed we’re hamstrung. Tactical nukes should have been used in some cases instead of losing troops in the past 8 years. We’ve lost too many so far due to trying to please the world.

Tactical nukes are good for fixed targets, armoured columns, chokepoints such as a bridge with divisions massing behind it. Not so good for scattered groups of guerillas who blend into and hide among an indigent civilian population.

And of course, have you considered the untoward consequences should one of our tactical nukes gets captured by jihadists? We can't just assume that they'd apologize and hand it back, can we? /sarc>

Cheers!

[Grizzled Bear]

Tactical nukes are good for fixed targets, armoured columns, chokepoints such as a bridge with divisions massing behind it. Not so good for scattered groups of guerillas who blend into and hide among an indigent civilian population.

I didn't even dignify the "Tactical Nukes" comment with a reply.

Ten years ago, I managed to explain the idiocy of considering nuclear weapons in a tactical environment to my (at the time) preadolescent nephew. However, I don't think I would have much success with our little friend.