The article mentions this weapon is the equivalent of 44 tons of TNT in conventional bombs. A mighty threat, but nothing compared to even the smallest nukes which have on the order of a just under a kiloton TNT equivalent.

What this does do is fill in the gap between the largest conventional weapons and the smallest nuclear devices, and it does so without the political or environmental consequences of the latter. It would be very useful for cheaply and discreetly spreading devastation in urban areas (think Chechnya) or softening up large areas of real estate occupied by an entrenched and dispersed enemy (mountain passes, landing beaches, etc., as a prelude to infantry assault). It would also be useful for temporarily putting airfields out of action, by taking out infrastructure while leaving the runways intact. It would have been useful in Tora Bora, even if only for psychological purposes. If I were a commander, I would use these weapons to take out a defense-in-depth position prior to occupying it, knowing my troops would not be exposed to the radiation of a tactical nuke. It would also be a good way to defend against armored formations (after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we are now the world's leading panzer blitzkreig threat).

What really scares me is the potential application of this weapon in a marine environment. I don't know how effective this bomb would be at sea against armored ships, but it could potentially neutralize an aircraft carrier's ability to conduct flight ops even if it didn't sink it outright. Even if a bird farm survived a near miss by one of these weapons, all aircraft on it's flight deck, all communications and sensor gear, and all topside personnel and superstructure would be just wiped clean. This, plus damage to the flight deck itself, would force the ship to withdraw, even if it was still intact below and still had the ability to maneuver.