During the last few days of WWII, the invasion plans for Japan were re-drawn to include 12 or so atomic bombs dropped to soften up the defenses. Macarthur wanted to use them against China in the Korean War. Several USAF officers requested permission to drop three atomic bombs on North Vietnamese communist forces in 1954. The Eisenhower Administration, in fact, supported the conventionalization of nuclear arms as a means of reducing military spending.
Yet each time, permission was not granted for the use of atomic weapons on the battlefield. As hydrogen bombs grew smaller, the emphasis shifted to Mutually Assured Destruction and the use of nuclear arms strategically. Since then, nuclear warfare has, in the public consciousness, become synonymous with MAD.
So how can we get a world where low-yield fission weapons are used, if not routinely, then far more regularly than IOTL? Where France, for example, doesn't think twice about glassing Communist insurgents in Indochina, or the Soviet Union begins the invasion of Afghanistan with a <10 kt strike on Afghan military formations? And what would the effects on international politics be if standard military doctrine for every capable power involves the use of tactical nuclear arms?
Yet each time, permission was not granted for the use of atomic weapons on the battlefield. As hydrogen bombs grew smaller, the emphasis shifted to Mutually Assured Destruction and the use of nuclear arms strategically. Since then, nuclear warfare has, in the public consciousness, become synonymous with MAD.
So how can we get a world where low-yield fission weapons are used, if not routinely, then far more regularly than IOTL? Where France, for example, doesn't think twice about glassing Communist insurgents in Indochina, or the Soviet Union begins the invasion of Afghanistan with a <10 kt strike on Afghan military formations? And what would the effects on international politics be if standard military doctrine for every capable power involves the use of tactical nuclear arms?