On 11/30/2017 9:19 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:51:05 -0600, Ignoramus1521
wrote:

Let's say that country A has 1,800 nuclear weapons.

And let's say that country B has 18 nuclear weapons that can reach
country A with 1 square mile accuracy.

And further let's suppose that these two countries are in a nuclear conflict.

Is it possible that country B could "win a nuclear war" and force
country A to end the war on highly unfavorable terms, despite having
only 1% of A's nuclear arsenal?

The real answer is that it is entirely possible, if country B's
arsenal is survivable (hard to find and well defended) and country B
can take more pain than country A.

What this brings up is a realization that nuclear war is in some ways
similar to a negotiation, rather than straight war like most
conventional war. The reason for this is a unique ability of nuclear
weapons to deliver a lot of pain over a long distance. Thus, nuclear
weapons can hurt countries directly, as opposed to conventional
weapons, which have to first work against their militaries.

i
It can boil down to "he who shoots first wins" or "he who blinks
looses"

ONE large nuke could neutralize many countries - but if B hits A 1st,
and A figures there is nothing left to lose, b could be totally
obliterated within hours - wiped right off the map - with a lot of
colateral damage all around. (ie - if NK hits the USA first, and USA
retaliates, SK and half of Asia would be SERIOUSLY affected -
including China and Japan

And that's why we can't nuke NK...EVER. Best you can do is a surgical
strike against one little prick.
I can't believe it hasn't been done already.
Anything else is the end of the world as we
know it.