Can we please drop this tactical nuke talk before somebody thinks we are serious? I can not think of anything that would destablize the world more, and that includes acts as repugnant as the whole scale massacre of the population of disputed areas by gun, gas or garrotte. Even if it was not a war crime on a massive scale, do we really want to eliminate one of the few transportation corridors in the theatre?
In the real bad old days of the Cold War, one of the specialties I trained in was nuclear target analysis which was one of the tasks performed by the DS field regiment CO's staff. Let me tell you that I grappled with the moral implications, but decided that being a very minor part of the nuclear detterent was far superior to leaving the west open to attack. The nuke was always the last step in escalation; to even consider using it against a civilian population not generally engaged in the war is to descend into barbarism. And if you can't see the difference between 1945 and 2009, then I question your comprehension of the world.
Last, even if we could overcome the above drawbacks, to use one or ten or . . . tactical nuclear weapons isn't really the best way to interdict a transportation/population corridor if the intention is to turn over the country to the national government.
Just my two cents.