FYI -- there's no such thing as a "tactical" nuke. A nuclear bomb is a nuclear bomb.
In the cold war arms manufacturer got very creative: e.g jeep mounted nuclear weapons https://www.militarytrader.com/mv-101/the-atomic-jeep
"Tactical" vs. "strategic" nuclear weapons is a real and well-established distinction in military doctrine, arms control, and nuclear policy.
Furthermore, this is a "what if" scenario since tactical nukes have never been used. Of course it would make escalation likely during an open conflict, so what? Doesn't change the fact that there is a material difference between a tactical nuke and a strategic one.
Two tactical nukes have been used, albeit against strategic (civilian, industrial, logistical) targets.
The nominal definition of tactical nukes has less to do with yield and more to do with how they're used; tactical typically means a weapon designed for use on the battlefield.
If you have a real interest in this area, a subscription to Foreign Affairs would be useful. Especially during the 20th century that's where all these arguments were hashed out. Tactical nukes were already being publicly debated in the 1950s. You may be able to access many older articles, from Foreign Affairs and others, through a free JSTOR account.
Sorry, but the notion exists, and the bombs exist. With n=2, likelyhood of nuclear escalation is hard to predict, but access to tactical nukes certainly hasn't increased the incidence of nuclear war so far.
I do think it's pretty hard to actually use a tactical nuke. If you use one against a nuclear power, it seems likely to escalate to mutually assured destruction. If you use one against a non-nuclear power, it seems likely to result in reprisal from the world, including potential nuclear response and therefore escalation to mutually assured destruction. I would think that the yield of the weapon barely matters, it's the fact that it's a nuclear weapon.
..Is what you are saying?