> I think the point of this sudden urge for transparency is to send a message to Russia and to the US allies about the tactical nukes. Perhaps. I don't think i

> I think the point of this sudden urge for transparency is to send a message to Russia and to the US allies about the tactical nukes. Perhaps. I don't think it the disparity really matters that much. Either Nuclear deterrence works or it doesn't. Once the first nuke goes off, all bets are off. > US allies are worried that maybe the US nuclear umbrella is not that strong after all. I imagine that US allies do worry, I suppose that has been the case since NATO's inception. But I don't think it's about the strength of the umbrella. It is the willingness to, after having offered shelter under it, actually employ nuclear weapons. Ukraine, is another question. If Russia employs tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, I don't think having a few hundred more B-61s (or a few thousand more tactical nukes to be deployed by hypothetical means) would be relevant. There are only so many aircraft that are equipped to fly them, crews trained to use them, and only so many "targets" to hit, before targets becomes another word for cities. At least initially, I assume that any US/NATO nuclear response would be on Russian targets occupying Ukrainian soil, hoping to avoid retaliation. All this is so depressing and scary.