perfidy

If you find yourself completely in agreement with Chappaquiddick Ted, its time to worry. There is no military difference between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, except for explosive yield. People freak out over nukes, both the explosive and power generating kind. It is not a matter of reason, it is sentimentality. Of course, there are larger concerns over using nukes - but only because others react irrationally. If the military really has a need to develop weapons like this, then fine - there has long been a gap between the largest conventional explosives and the smallest nuclear explosives. The trend for the last two decades has been toward generally smaller explosives, if only because of greater precision. But the interplay between offensive and defensive technology means that people realize that we can drop a bomb exactly where we want, and will redouble their efforts to armor stuff they don't want blown up. Eventually, they will reach a point where an armored bunker target is largely immune to any conventional explosive device, no matter how accurately delivered. (Flip side of that is that armoring is very expensive.) A small nuclear device in a penetrating casing is the perfect bunker buster. The fact that there will be some radiation is not the horrifying spectre that some make it out to be. Chemical explosives have toxic residues. So does rocket exhaust. And car exhaust for that matter.

The daisy cutter of Afghanistan fame was 7.5 tons yield. Hiroshima was 2000 times larger, at 15 Kt. In all likelihood, 1/100 of Hiroshima would be more than adequate.