On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:00:17 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
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

Paraphrasing an example given by Carl Sagan: The leader of Country A and the leader of Country B are standing in a room, knee-deep in gasoline. Leader A has 1800 books of matches. Leader B has 18 books of matches. Now, describe a scenario that comes out good for either of them.


You are describing MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) described as " a
doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a
full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would
cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

In the case above numbers of matchbooks is probably immaterial.
--
Cheers,

John B.