>but why didn't they use the nukes then?
Well, why didn't they use their nerve agents (Sarin and Tabun gas)?
Actually, what was the point of the V2 program? Strap some conventional explosives to extremely expensive rockets for a few thousand dead civilians? Them being used for retaliatory purposes makes for great propaganda but is there really a point to this from a strategic viewpoint? I mean, if that was all they were intended for why not put more effort in the anti-air Waterfall rocket and could have halted the bomber streams and actually turned the course of the war? Some of you will simply claim that they were retarded, but if we are honest obviously this was a show of force, they had the ability to strike enemy territory without having air superiority and they wanted the enemy to know it.
I know you will say that the V2 might not have been able to carry a payload as huge as a nuke and maybe you are right, but we know that the intercontinental A9/A10 was in development which would've had that ability.