I will give you a slightly different answer. “Small” atomic bombs are incredibly more dangerous than big ones.

This is a 152-mm Russian nuclear artillery shell. The US and China and France and Britain, among others, also have them.

The problem that killed their use is that tactical missiles are easier to use and have far better range and reliability. (And ultimately are cheaper.)

But the discussion about that that has led to a lot of re-thinking about it was the development of the B61 “dialable” nuclear freefall bomb.

This bomb could be dialed from a very small yield to a very large yield. But after it was fielded, a lot of rethinking started because the lower end of the yield scale overlapped that of large conventional bombs.

This led many potential commanders to believe that a B61 dialed down to a low yield was the same as a very large conventional bomb. That presents a huge danger in that if you drop a dialed-back B61 on someone, they are going to react the same as if it is a full sized nuclear explosion.

If you are on the receiving end, the difference is negligible.

The B61 has made the modern battlefield far more dangerous and nuclear artillery and other “small” nuclear weapons fall into the same category of weapons that can unexpectedly and uncontrollably lead to a massive nuclear exchange.