[Abathar]

""If there was such a thing as a nuke with no fallout and any destruction from a detonation was localized, then this might be more feasible.""

There is one, I believe it is the neutron bomb, it kills the people without destroying the infrastructure and the huge amount of fallout associated with a "standard" nuke. If memory serves me right we have these things designed and all the components laying around but one of the SALT treaties keeps us from assembling them. The Russians feared these things greatly, especially in Eastern Europe during the cold war. They could kill the troops and a week later forces could move right back through the area with minimal exposure.

[BikerNYC]

I thought the neutron bomb has the radiation and the fallout (that's how it kills) but does not have the explosive power to destroy buildings. It wipes a city clean of life but lets the infrastructure remain intact.

[AFPhys]

ERWs (Enhanced Radiation Weapons, aka 'neutron bombs') are very destructive in themselves, contrary to popular misconceptions. An EHR of, say, 5okiloTon yield would cause approximately the same blast damage as the 10-20 kT Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. They would kill biologicals out to a greater distance through radiation effects than those weapons did, but they still are enormously destructive. In general the radiation effects are enhanced about threefold over "conventional" nuclear bombs.