>Broadly speaking, we can expect nuclear weapons to be aimed at one of three types of targets: strategic (nuclear) targets, conventional military forces, and in

>Broadly speaking, we can expect nuclear weapons to be aimed at one of three types of targets: strategic (nuclear) targets, conventional military forces, and industrial/infrastructure targets. This is assuming the person wielding the nukes is attempting to use them for normal military activity. However, nuclear weapons are generally wasteful for this purpose; regular missiles work just as well, cost less money, and do not poison the land you want to invade for weeks out. If you could use nukes in an ordinary military campaign, then all the nuclear disarmament over the last 30 years would not have happened. The only thing nuclear weapons are really good at is killing lots of people really quickly. Thus, my current bet is that if Russia attempts to use their nukes, it will specifically be a last-ditch effort to kill as many pro-EU Ukranians as possible on their way out of the country. Their current actions are consistent with this; when their initial blitzkrieg failed, they proceeded to slaughtering as many civilians as they could. I otherwise generally agree with the article's contention that nuclear war will not be a species-destroying event. It is, however, still something worth avoiding; because in an all-out war Russia will absolutely be going after population centers first and not militarily-valuable targets. Russia's goal is not to win the war. Their goal is to make Putin look tough and powerful while goading the west into making the mistake of counterattacking so we can bleed faster than they are.