NATO use of nuclear AAM's

[Weaver]

Mind you with the early tail chase guidance systems if the target broke lock a proximity fused nuke would still have a reasonable chance of killing the target. (Says the guy with no knowledge of what he is going on about)

That's actually kind of what Genie was all about. Far from the popular image of firing it into "formations" of Soviet bombers, the actual point was that with 1950s technology, it was flatly impossible to score a direct hit, or even a near-miss in a head-on engagement with conventional AAMs. The average miss distance was so great that only a small nuke had a lethal radius large enough to compensate.

In WWII, a significant proportion of bombers were engaged and destroyed on their way home, after they'd bombed the target, which was a worthwhile exercise since it stopped them from coming back tomorrow. However, when the bombers are nuclear-armed (maybe even nuclear-missile-armed), then taking them down ASAP and absolutely, definately BEFORE they bomb the target becomes imperative, because if you don't, then tomorrow is officially cancelled. 

This is why the head-on engagement became so important: the only other option is to fly past the incoming bomber and then tail-chase it down to IR AAM/guns range, but with the speeds and turn radii of the jet age, that imposed an unnacceptably long delay.

[rickshaw]

The funny thing about Genie was that it wasn't designed to explode at the point closest to the target.  Its fusing was set to explode as the target actually start to recede from the missile (ie, after the missile had actually passed it).  This was more reliable than imposing a minimum distance at which the missile would explode, as most proximity fuses do, relying on a near miss to actuate the fusing.

[Geoff]

Oh I don't know if the wing tip is capable of carrying a big tank like the Can can (sorry)