Yet nukes are probably the only real "deterrent" effect. If you plan to fight a war, you buy lots of conventional ammunition. If you plan to never fight one, you buy lots of nukes. Sometimes, if you're not sure, you do both.
Right now America seems intent on doing neither.
Conventional rounds of ammunition are unaffordable on a flat basis. There isn't enough money to buy all the rounds you need and wars don't seem to last long enough to shift the tiny, dilapidated ateliers of modern military-industrial concerns into the assembly lines needed. Even if they did, where would you find the labor, given it's a fairly manpower intensive thing.
Nuclear weapons are suitable for small batch production, and are never used in training, so they can be kept in stockpiles indefinitely.
If we're going to talk about "large" quantities of shells, you need to speak in terms of singleton or double digit thousands. Not tens of millions. Not millions. Not even hundreds of thousands. ERCA is a specialized weapon for a Corps, not a general purpose artillery piece, so it is genuinely comparable to tactical nuclear missiles al a the Honest John or Lance.
ERCA won't be able to make use of the vast majority of ammunition, which is probably the biggest part of what makes it useless.
Yes, the idea that Germany would rather capitulate than accept nuclear weapons release on its territory was assumed by the Red Army.
The real practical note is that ERCA is a bit expensive for what it is, its ammunition is silly, and attempts to fix ERCA would involve spending almost as much money on something not terribly useful. Guided missiles are simply superior beyond about 50-70 kilometers. But if you had to have a long range gun then making it as big as possible, to fire cassette shells, is the only reasonable alternative to tactical nuclear artillery.
