[blorsh]

That is way too dismissive, wrongly comparing total cyclone energy with what we can generate.

A more reasonable objection would be that we don't desire a radioactive cyclone. This is an obvious downside, though there are low-fallout designs (most energy from fusion) that aren't too bad. We did survive the 1960s after all.

We'd have to simulate and test many times. Better prediction capability, for both cyclones and nukes, would increase the chance of knowing if we made a difference.

Nukes might not be the best way. Silver nitrate cloud seeding was tried in the 1950s, but we can't know if it actually made a difference because we didn't have much ability to predict things back then. (wimpy computers) Another approach is to block ocean evaporation. Create an oil slick as large as the cyclone, and there you go.

Maybe we need all three at once: oil slick to weaken it, then nukes and silver nitrate to steer it. Note that this would likely be an operation that puts the Berlin airlift to shame.