[Overpaid Slacker]

Colin -
One advantage to battlefield nukes is that it will destroy, utterly and finally, any biotoxic/chemical/radiological threats in the blast radius.

I think the "baggage" as you call it is more perceived than real right now, but I can't quote chapter and verse the sources that have led me to that conclusion. Our newer weapons are very "clean" compared to what we've had in the past.

As the missile defense system matures, the ICBMs will become dinosaurs and likely largely de-commissioned or replaced with space-based and/or smaller yield weapons (we always had the advantage of accuracy of the Soviets' advantage of lifting power). It IS expensive to maintain these weapons in a ready state (tritium is not long-lived in effective dosages) but not so much so I'd abandon these weapons just yet.

I think Bush the Elder's comment after the Gulf War that in no circumstances would he ever have used nukes did not help us. A key element of nukes' efficacy-in-their-silos is your enemies' belief that you can and will use them -- maybe even be itching for a reason to use them.

When W declared that states that harbor/aid/abet terrorists will be considered enemies as though they were terrorists themselves, in a sense that provides a new strategic target list. NOT that I'm advocating raining MIRVs onto Tehran or Damascus, but certain of the terror sponsors' (remote) secret facilities might host a display of fission and will.

In the next 10-12 years there will be a nuclear weapon used in anger.

JP