"You'd have to be insane to use such an unpredictable, dangerous weapon when you can (destroy Iraqi forces) with plain old, garden-variety precision weapons," said Edward Luttwak, a nuclear-strategy expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington.

"Any attack by an enemy using weapons of mass destruction would have to be very perverse" in order to justify a nuclear response, Luttwak continued. "Conventional weapons would be much more effective anyway."
...
Currently, most nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal are decades old and not fitted with the accurate precision guidance systems that most conventional bombs and missiles have, analysts noted. In the event of a war with Iraq, it is believed that about 80 percent of the U.S. bombs and missiles aimed at Iraqi targets would be satellite- or laser-guided smart bombs, as opposed to the roughly 20 percent used during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

» U.S. unlikely to use nukes against Iraq