His belief that nuclear wars would be won by the side that disarmed the other side means that: 1. There is no limit on the number of nuclear weapons that shoul

His belief that nuclear wars would be won by the side that disarmed the other side means that: 1. There is no limit on the number of nuclear weapons that should be built, each side should always strive for more weapons than the other side. Thus, increasing the scale of nuclear wars. >Nuclear war is so fast that destroying a city does not provide any military benefits to the attacker nor any military costs to a defender. 2. Since the other side will not waste weapons on cities (by his calculus of attacking to disarm), mutually assured destruction will not work and therefore nuclear wars are inevitable and largely bloodless (low human cost). 3. Any time one side has more weapons it should immediately use those weapons to disarm the other side. That is, strike when you gain an advantage even if you have no good cause, since the other side would do the same. Unfortunately present experience suggests that while cities might not be on the initial target list, once one side started to loss heavily they would likely target the other sides cities to spoil the victors post-war advantage.