There are plenty of situations I can think of.bilby said:The only situation I am aware of where tactical nuclear weapons are a superior option over conventional weapons is against massed armour.
For example, suppose F22, F35, and a bunch of other aircraft operate from an airfield in Poland. It would be very difficult for Russia to get close enough to cause significant damage before the forces in the airfield can respond and destroy the attacker. But what if a rocket launcher fires a barrage of 0.5 kt nukes at the airfield. Some are intercepted, 2 or 3 get through, and all of those advanced aircraft are gone, alongside a bunch of people and any big radars they have.
In general, tactical nukes are pretty good at destroying any sort of fixed facility, airfields, radars, command and control facilities, and so on. Also, in an artillery duel, the side firing nukes has a significant advantage all other things equal - if other things aren't equal, it may compensate for less accuracy. They're also good against large naval targets.
Nukes aimed at ships are tactical, but nukes aimed at airfields would be considered strategic.