Funny how based on the same facts, someone can draw completely different conclusions. This article tries hard to show that this advance in nuclear weaponry is d

Funny how based on the same facts, someone can draw completely different conclusions. This article tries hard to show that this advance in nuclear weaponry is destabilizing, while it appears to me it's a huge step in the right direction. More precise nuclear weapons are good. It means lower yields are necessary to render hardened targets inoperable. That means in turn lower collateral damage, and reduced fallout. As even more precision is acquired, at some point non-nuclear warheads will be able to destroy the same targets. 50 years from now, we'll get to a point where MAD can be achieved fully without nuclear weapons. This may sound bad to some, but it's the only path towards full world denuclearization. When this denuclearization will be achieved, the scientists behind these small incremental strategic weaponry improvements will deserve a collective Nobel prize for peace. I won't be holding my breath for that ...