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.

Precisely. This negotiation with NK seems to require the addition of
some 9mm pieces of copper clad lead from one of Poindexter's General's
BaekDuSans rather than a nuke. At least that's my hope.

--
Silence is more musical than any song.
-- Christina Rossetti