On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:28:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:51:12 PM UTC-5, 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

I think that if country B used any or all of its 18 nukes, it would be bombed out of existence. If any of B's weapons managed to survive, they would be useless as there would be no one to launch them.

The U.S. and Russia at one time had enough nuclear weapons to put the top 1 inch of soil of the entire world into space

Dan



I agree. Whatever damage "B" could inflict on "A" there's no chance
that "A" is not going to respond severely.

"B" has has a number of problems that are not exposed in the
over-simplified scenario.

I can't see "A" surrendering as long as they still have a competent
capacity to remove "B" from the map.

Ending "B's" existence won't end the enormous "pain" that was inflicted
on "A"; but then neither does surrendering to "B" end "A's" pain.

I would be more concerned about what the sudden destabilation that "A's
capituation would cause on the world scene. If "A" did surrender to
"B", then at best: the rest of the free world falls with "A".

Worst case? "A" not only lost the war with "B", but suffered even more
from a second war over who would control the world in "A's" absence.