All this may be true but also somewhat irrelevant if your opponent does not believe it and credibly threatens to use limited nuclear attacks as a part of its war fighting strategy. The whole article discusses only the strategic thinking of American Cold War planners. Why did you say nothing about Soviet war plans? Because they clearly and consistently planned on delivering a limited series of nuclear strikes as a part of their European theater operational doctrine. They obviously did not believe your argument. Nor, at the current time, do I think the Russians believe it. Russia is already in violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty and the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. How should the United States respond to the placement of potentially nuclear tipped Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad Oblast except by upping its own theater scale nuclear game? And, please, citing Diane Feinstein in a discussion of nuclear strategy is ridiculous: the woman soils herself merely thinking about a Glock, let alone a nuclear weapon.