[NickC25]

Sure - moving a few dozen nuclear warheads to Kiev and telling Russia "Kiev has nukes now, make one step further into Ukraine and we'll make sure they'll hit the Kremlin by end of day today".

And then tell Putin "hey Putain, feel free to call our bluff".

[YetAnotherNick]

Putin: "Thanks for heads up as I left Kremlin. Also don't mind the ICBM to Washington and NYC"

Nuclear war couldn't be won.

[jonathanstrange]

I don't know. People used to say during the Cold War that deterrence works. If it doesn't work, a nuclear war is unavoidable anyway.

[NickC25]

Might as well get it over with at that point. If Putin does decide to strike first, yeah, Washington or NYC gets hit. OK. We'll live. Russia will be flattened by the entire world's nukes at that point, and the likes of China will be inclined to join in on the fun and take a whole bunch of Russian land.

[bilbo0s]

Washington or NYC gets hit. OK. We'll live.

Clearly, you're unfamiliar with the prosecution of a nuclear conflict.

I wouldn't count on NYC being the only place hit. In fact, I wouldn't count on any of our port cities and even any mainland military infrastructure surviving the initial strike. Additionally, energy infrastructure would be severely crippled. None of that even counts the disruption to electronics and communication wrought by the EMP blasts. And no, none of it's coming back. I can assure any Russian readers that the same would happen to you in a nuclear exchange with us. The initial strikes would be unfortunate for europe, as I think they would likely fare the worst.

But as bad off as we'd all be, the worst would be yet to come. The secondary strikes are where the knockout blows would be dealt.

Nuclear war, (any war really), is raw and nasty. Don't expect "limited" strikes. By your own admission, we would send a massive retaliatory strike to Russia. It defies logic for them to send a limited strike our way. That's not how nuclear war works.