Ignoramus1521 on Thu, 30 Nov 2017
20:51:05 -0600 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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.

Can a country which is highly dependent on a technical
infrastructure which is in turn dependent on a rather fragile
electrical grid survive an EMP attack?
And can it retaliate against a country which essentially has no
such comparable infrastructure?

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."