@105. Whitehall

You could tear a good hole in a Soviet city with a 100kT bomb (about 6x Hiroshima), and that would play hob with the electrical net and food transport infrastructure, but in terms of ending a war it would not come close. Bridges would remain intact unless hit nearly directly, industrial buildings would be damaged but with critical equipment intact, and etc. Railroad nets are apparently a deuce to take out with nukes, as well. So, while you’d generate a lot of suffering, they’d get mad and get over it.

Interestingly, you’d cause more direct civilian casualties than an equivalent strike on a US city. Why? Denser apartment blocks, all of at least 5 stories with commerce done on the first floor so people don’t have to go far. Industry (targets) mixed in as well. Despite having tons of space, the Soviets built up and not out, like the Europeans, but did so to keep people from moving around and eluding observation. Meanwhile, a US city would lose the commerce area, but retain most of the population spread around the suburbs.

100kT nukes came into their own once the targeting systems became more precise and useful for obliterating this or that base/factory/bridge. Now those 25mT bombs, you’d not have a city or population left….

–JC