[quote=So Boerd]
For one who carries himself as a military expert and a redblooded American, I'm surprised.[/quote]

Glad to disappoint. War is an extension of politics (that's Clauswitz, for you military experts out there). Nuclear war can therefore only arise from cataclysmic politics. The scenarios you have described consistently do not make sense -- whether that's exchanging capital cities, or nuking armies to 'dissuade them from using the nuclear threat so casually in the future.' That is the [i]definition[/i] of using the nuclear threat casually. Weapons of annihilation are useful for only one purpose (hint: it's not construction). 

Besides which, they're relics of the past, no more relevant to modern combat than a battleship. We have cooler, better, and much more terrifying weapon systems now. Even if you assume that total domination and conquest is the goal, why would you nuke anything? Totally ruins the lawn. You can drop a bomb into a champagne glass from the other side of the world, without even breaking the windows on the first floor. Anyway I've outlined the situations in which I consider a nuclear strike viable (you sorta shifted towards them, in the latest post, but don't think the purpose of the limitations really sank in). Hopefully it's been helpful.