Tatical nuclear weapons did not exist in 1950. I agree that there would the use of these weapons, but the ability of the US to hit targets deep in the Soviet union would be risky, as they could and would get shot down, giving the Soviets a working copy of the bomb. Revenge could be a bitch, as they would not hesitate employing gas in retaliation and don't think they wouldn't use it against britian.
No wiking, you are mistaken again.
If you look at Operation Downfall, you'll understand that a tactical Nuke is as much as matter of usage as of yield. Tactical Nukes are the first kind of nuke--a lowish yield weapon that is effective at killing troop concentrations, and the first nuclear weapons were in this bracket. The USA can drop Nuclear Weapons on Soviet Military targets, and they already have the bomb, as of 1949. It's a matter of production and number. The USA has 300+; the Soviets 5.
The USA doesn't need to target the Soviet Homeland to crush the Red Army. Furthermore, when you drop a nuclear bomb or have one shot down, it's not immediately usable.
The Soviet Union would be destroyed if it attempted to attack in Europe in response for China. Indeed, with this level of a nuclear weapons gap in place, the Soviet Union would be gone. Even if the USA lost 3 bombers for every hit, that's the Soviet's largest production centers gone.
Throw in that Eastern Europe is going to be even more welcoming to the Allies as France is to the Communists and the results of this situation is likely to be and then the Soviets have this decision to make:
China is under attack! Should we:
A. Send small forces and make the US pay dearly for their expansion throughout China?
B. Attack in Europe, lose our sphere of influence in the Eastern Half and have our major cities get wiped out.
Wiking, you are the only advocate of plan B.