What do you believe about the wisdom of actually using our nuclear weapons?

1LT Sandy Annala They are a necessary deterrent to the use by any country in the world that has their own. I believe that any POTUS former or future will use them only as a last course of action. I believe projecting a strong front to rogue countries is necessary in today's world. Do you think for a minute if Israel used a nuke against Iran, if Iran used one first or was testing the ability to hit Israel that Russia or China would retaliate in kind (I doubt it). I doubt think or believe the super powers will use them against each other, but against rogue countries that are using them in the wrong manner affecting their own national interests. Now, if North Korea fires one at the USA, I believe that China would let the US retaliate in kind and it would not escalate. Most of the Super Powers understand the consequences of an all out nuclear war and the subsequent destruction of mankind. Just my opinion. It may be a naive opinion!

Ray Bradbury once wrote that "we should worship at the altar of the Atomic bomb" because it made war unthinkable. However, If such weapons fall into the hands of members of a death cult such as radical Islamists and other terrorists we may well see a need to use them again (as when we fought Imperial Japan - a death cult). Thus Trump's question became frighteningly relevant

I've trained to use nuclear weapons and was also involved in developing plans to employ them. No matter what anyone feels about nuclear weapons, they have served as an effective deterrent since we first used them against Japan. To the best of my knowledge the US has never stated a no first use policy and in fact there are circumstances where a limited strike with a tactical nuke can make sense. I vividly remember planning meetings and conferences where the "fighter pilot" types were adamant that there was no need to use a nuke when they could mount multiple sorties to take out a target. In the end they came around on certain target sets because one sortie using a tactical nuke would destroy a target. Yes that use would devastate the area around the target but isn't a death knell for the area, one needs to look at the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today to realize that.
Part of the paranoia about nuclear weapons is the buy in to the mutual assured destruction concept that was touted for decades. While that was certainly true if there had been an exchange of strategic nukes by th US and USSR it wouldn't be the case with a small limited tactical nuke strike against enemy X. Many countries/militarys have the capability to distinguish between a massive strike headed their way vs a single sortie, so would discovery of a single delivery vehicle result in a massive retaliation, I think not. That is where the value of nuclear weapons as a deterrent comes to play in my opinion. Our enemies need to know that we have the ability to dial up or down the scope of a nuke strike and would do so given the right set of circumstances.