The only time nuclear weapons have ever been used in a force-on-force setting was to achieve military objectives.

I would really enjoy reading a piece that explored the distinction you attempt to make here, because the logic is circular. Nuclear weapons are intimidating because they ARE the ultimate weapon for policy pursued via force.

Look at Russia's current barrage strategy; it is intended to demoralize the supporting populace in Ukraine, and to make the logistical chain for the armed forces brittle, if not broken. It makes it harder to fight the war, and potentially puts Ukraine in a position desperate enough to approach Russia for ceasefire negotiations (i.e. Ukraine has stated it is nearly out of ammunition, and that cities are without electricity). How is the use of a nuclear weapon not the same strategy, just at the most violent and extreme level? It certainly does serve military objectives if it is not met with equal reciprocation (i.e. a nuclear response by the West); a factor that is the core of the nuclear arms "prisoner's dilemma."