Sure, get out on a battlefield and lob a few Davy Crocketts at the enemy and irradiate your own troops. They couldn't throw the thing far enough down range to prevent it. That's why the weapon was moth balled in favor of ICBM platforms. Mutual destruction was the key fundamental used to prevent such a war.
In a nuclear war, nobody wins. Plain and simple.
Depends on the wind, the Crockett had a lethal exposure range of about 400m (quarter mile), not factoring in the fallout drift. The weapon itself could be fired a distance of just under two miles and could also be fired from a jeep. So in theory, with the wind blowing from behind you, you could use a Crockett with minimal effects to the men around you. In fact the explosion itself would probably be smaller than a MOAB.
I think the primary reason the Crockett was mothballed was because it would have been far too easy to use it, which would have just escalated things up the ladder. Besides, why use a weapon that creates a mess over ground that you might be able to go forth and capture eventually, when you can use a conventional weapon or two that have the same firepower.
- This would probably be about the maximum size of the explosion for a Davy Crockett.