[simonblack]

I once did the exercise of finding a list of US cities ranked by size. By the time I got down to number 300, it was some small, insignificant place that only had a population of about three thousand.

300 nukes is well and truly enough.

[ohaideredevs]

You aren't hitting cities with nukes, you are hitting launch sites, command centers, AFBs, naval facilities, carrier battle groups, etc.

Sure, in all out war, you will hit a few major cities, but only a small percentage of the nukes will go there.

Fair point nonetheless.

[simonblack]

That 'military objectives only" thing was tried in WW2, but found wanting. In bombing against both Germany and Japan, it was found that destroying civilians' homes was far more effective.

Read up on Curtis Le May's methods in Germany, Japan, and then later in North Korea. He was a great proponent of fire-bombing large areas in the centre of cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

One fire-bombing raid killed as many people in Tokyo as were killed a few months later in Hiroshima's atom-bombing.

[ohaideredevs]

You and I both know the goal of that was to get Hirohito to surrender and that Japan lost most of it strike capability. If strike capability is present, it's a priority.