ukraine

NATO has a swarm of aircraft monitoring sigint and tracking subs right now . Like Fogg said they will have very detailed response or several different responses sorted already and all the resources will be on standby for a conventional response and nuclear . They are probably tracking Putin when they can too looking for a rare chance to pop him one if they need to.
I read recently that NATO could neutralise Russia within 24Hrs using conventional methods which I guess would be a mass airstrike , rockets , drones etc

And downwind for radiation is China. He won't for that reason alone

I think this is right, and NATO has no need for Nukes.
I don't think nukes give any tactical advantage, and they are a pain to clean up afterwards. The value of nukes is in deterrent. A case in point is that is why everyone is talking about these tiny tactical nukes, not the big ones launched by ICBM's.

As far as I can tell, the only practical reason for this war (apart from vanity) is the economic value of the region. Steel mills, grain production, natural resources etc. That and easy access to shipping (coastal position). Nuking it makes it useless for any economic benefit. Worst case is a scorched earth policy if they are loosing, which they are fairly much doing now, taking out all of the power infrastructure, bridges and any building that is worth anything. You can achieve that with conventional weapons without the added risk of nuclear fallout.

Next question, how do you defeat someone with nukes? You have to take out all of their nukes as quick as you can. I'm sure NATO already have eyes on every missile silo and airfield where they can launch from. The big unknown is the submarines. And that has always been the whole point of nuclear armed subs, as the ultimate deterrent. We can only hope NATO have developed tech to track the Russian subs, but I wouldn't rely on it. The next line of defense is the ability to shoot nukes down once they are in the air. Considering each missile has 6 or 7 warheads each, that could be complicated. The missile shoots them up (into space) and the individual warheads can re-enter and come down on individual targets. That could get messy. But again, there main purpose is deterrent. If Putin commands subs to launch ICBM's the the law of mutually assured destruction applies and Russia is gone. (along with half of the western world also, but Putin's Russia will still be gone.)

In the big scheme of things, this is (currently) a small regional conflict. The US has conducted a half a dozen of these in the over recent decades. The only differences are a) we care about this one, and b) europe is facing an energy crisis because of it. Otherwise it is really just another Iraq, Afghanistan (US and Russian), Korea, Vietnam, etc. Remember the lesson from Russia in Afghanistan? The economic toll. Sanctions aside, if a country sends all of their productive workers to war (conscription) who is left to produce stuff? The cost of the war will end it before Nukes do.

Plenty of cloaks and daggers everywhere these days ...https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/us-military-aircraft-circled-nord-stream-incident-site-in-se

The crazy rhetoric and bluster is rapidly disappearing on the national brainwash show

Current thinking seems that if Putin uses a small nuc. the west won't need to reply in kind

They'll just use their stand-off capabilities to hit every Russian target in Ukraine

Or take Kaliningrad etc