Well, maybe. As in maybe the US administration wants to go for the tactical nuclear option. Will they be able to get the military to go along though? There are at least some indication that it would be difficult to get some of the top brass along. From the April 17th issue of the New Yorker where Seymour Hersh breaks the tactical nuke plans story: (diaried here)

link
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. "This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."

(my bold)

Have the nuclear option been taken off the table because of military opposition? Does there exist some kind of "military safety valve" whereby the uniforms will refuse to carry out the orders of their civilian superiors if the perceive them too insane? Are the threats of resignation above as far as it would go, or is there an additional threat of a military coup, or coup like action if the orders of nuclear strikes do go out? What does that sentence in bold imply? I assume that within the US military there are many opinions on the nuclear option, and several groupings that would act in different ways if a nuclear strike was ordered. Terrifying and complicated. But I do think that the use of tactical nukes is not a decision that can just be taken by the Bush administration. They would need something other than just a reliance on the normal chain of command to deal with the severe opposition that seems to exist within the military.

The article above is old news by now. I remember having read something more recent, but I can't remember where. Will search further...

of no reality that Bush and his cohorts occupy. Anything can be rationalized away as being a defence of freedom, democracy and lots of other buzzwords.
The probalem is what inevitably gets accepted as reasonable in the US (and Israel) usually disgusts ordinary people around the world. Maybe the use of tactical nukes will break up NATO, but becasue the people of Europe push their governments to the point where they have to abandon their obsequious realtionships with the US. The European govenrments themselves are highly unlikely to change the status quo without a major push whatver the provocation is.