>>14297401>nuclear bombs are overrated because you can't use them anymore without destroying yourselfincorrect. Extremely short-sighted and unscientific. the world's nuclear stockpiles could easily be depleted onto a single major country without stopping a war in that country. Nuclear weapons require a degree of statistical overkill to be effective. You need many missiles per target, otherwise guidance issues and interception mean you don't destroy the whole target. Say your target is a city, and you need 4 solid hits to do the ~80% damage you want given the detonation height requirements for building destruction. You should fire 10+ missiles at this city, to ensure that despite a few being a bit off target and a couple being intercepted you will still do major damage to the city. Of course, with world tensions so high in this example, expect half the population to be evacuated, expect a further half to be very protected in shelter, and expect some large percentage of the remaining 25% of people to survive and remain able to provide for the war effort for a decade or so until cancer kills them.
>but muh nuke would destroy the whole citythere just aren't enough 10kt nuclear weapons to do this on any large scale. There are thousands of nukes. There are tens of thousands of cities. Each city requires dozens of nuclear weapons to destroy. Destroying a city does NOT stop logistics. War is won through logistics. Logically, nuclear weapons do NOT stop war.
Perhaps if major countries stockpiles 10k+ nuclear weapons of 5+ kt yield, I would be on the fence. The major powers stockpile just a few thousand weapons, and most are 1kt or split into many warheads (for the obvious and already stated reason of targeting issues and increasing overkill chance)
