If decision makers are at the point where they’re using nuclear weapons, are they really going to dial it down and risk not destroying the target to save civilians or are they just going to go for the biggest punch possible? I just don’t see a general saying an aircraft should use a B61 nuclear bomb to destroy an enemy sensor, command center or launcher but instead of using its full 80 kilotons, we’ll make it 10, 5 or 0.3.
I suppose the only real utility would be for the nuclear equivalent of a creeping barrage or close-air support where you have friendly units with NBC protection close-by to immediately rush into the shelled/nuked zone right after the munitions hit. Pretty nightmarish and it probably discounts the risks to friendly troops by figuring that they’ll die soon of something anyway but I can see that making sense.
But maybe other people can think of uses for it which would be both beneficial and actually likely to be used in such circumstances.