Correction.

I see this as begging the Question of *Ever* using nukes *except* in retaliation ie NO FIRST STRIKE *ever* from the USA. Remember? That was *supposed* to be the US-Rulez Imposed on Self, and *proclaimed* during the [ongoing as we speak] M.A.D. Manifesto. Yes, this principle was re Strategic- ie the MADDEST of the MAD devices. BUT..

Ummm, we've ALWAYS retained the "right" of first use in nukes. Happily!

We will/may first strike with nukes.
We will/may second strike with chemicals.
We will never use biological weapons.

Now, the use of TACTICAL nukes was to offset a SUPERIOR FORCE OF ARMOUR.

Well, that and to (I think this was the phrasing) "to dramatically and effectively change the enemy commander's assessment of the battle".

Now, when are we EVER going to face overwhelming armour forces? Or ANY overwhelming force? Iraq was one of the biggest and we STILL wiped them out without even deploying our entire force.

At this point, tactical nukes are (at best) not necessary. Unless Canada has been secretly producing thousands of tanks.

At worst, they are a target for terrorists or people who would supply terrorists.

Assuming that what you recall (from actual presence in our military service, perhaps?) - was ~ the rationale:

Do I notice sufficient vagary in some of those phrases such that, say,
~~massed armour~~ might be retranslated for 2002 to mean er.. significant threat to National Sovereignty (or any other sufficiently fluid phrase) ??

And too - the need for New ones might well be: for their mass customized production - say, for the methodical rubbleizing of every cave we happen to find in the next 'hostile harbour of Bad People' ? plus a rather confidential list of other imagined 'purposes'. 'Cause that's what I infer from this brief leak of intentions. (After all - we wouldn't *fund* something we have No Intention of Ever Using, now would we?)

Ashton
like watching a building collapse in slo-mo .... ... .. .

Welcome to IWETHEY!