About Nuclear weapons

Only in videogames are Nuclear Weapons practical.

It's because in life they serve the purpose of Sword of Damocles rather than something to wage wars with (it's always the last solution, not the first).

Also, the practical refers to the definition of "Being likely to be effective and applicable to a real situation; able to be put to use", not that it's common or whatever. This in relation to the theoretical and unrealistic tool tags.

Simply because it worked should not make it automatically practical. And 'worked' can only be applied loosely to M.A.D. Think of all the lives, time, talent, technology, effort, energy, money that was spent due to posturing with nuclear weapons. Wouldn't all of that been better applied elsewhere?
I don't think I'm only person with this opinion. I may have missed the Cuban Missile Crisis but I remember a time when the subject of the threat of nuclear inhalation took more time out of school than anything else. Not that practical when one considers any of the alternative efforts.

The fact it provoked people to spend such ridiculous sums of money to try counter it is proof that it worked. Just because both sides got the same thing and forced both sides to work against it doesn't invalidate that it worked.

Also, the not working bit can be said of any weapon if one wishes to, especially those meant to scare people rather than to actually use on them. They could still use the nukes if they wanted to, but since the opposition has them too and there's still no reliable counter, actually using them is not a good idea. But the fact you also built them works as much as a deterrent for the others to use them. Also, one can compare the use of nuclear weapons in war to explosives used in mining. The latter has been largely (not completely) phased out for similar reasons to why nuclear weapons aren't used, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in practical use.

And, as I already pointed out, practical here does not refer to it being a good idea, it just means it was or is actually used for its designated purpose instead of being only a theoretical or imaginary concept. They dropped nukes, they blew stuff up as was expected. That's pretty practical application to me.

If this subject keeps dragging on, then please propose alternate name for the practical tools tag instead that shows that the tools were or are in actual use instead of being fanciful or out of current manufacturing capabilities.

By that logic, I could say I have a transwarp bomb capable of destroying small galaxies. As long as people believe I have it, my transwarp bomb becomes a practical tool.
But suppose I actually do have a transwarp bomb. That would make me a threat to this arm of the milky way. Now that seems very impractical to me for two reasons. The most important of which is it might go off. The other reason is others are going to want their own transwarp bomb (even if I don't actually have one).

So, for the sake of argument. Lets say M.A.D. works and that only makes it practical. So what happens if a nuclear bomb works? You know, it serves it purpose. The purpose of a bomb is to explode. How is that practical? I think you've confused M.A.D. with nuclear bombs.

Except nuclear weapons are quite real.


M.A.D. is a no winner scenario with any W.M.D.s both/all sides of the conflict possess, not limited or specific to nuclear weapons thus can't really be used as an argument. And there was a time when only one side had them, thus it was practical at that time.

You can throw the same argument to a fight with two people with loaded guns pointed at each other, it's equally impractical as with nukes. Nukes just make the end result much more pronounced.
Edit: Except with nukes there's higher chance the other side fires their nukes in response, while with guns the timing needs to be a lot more simultaneous. But then whoever said it's impossible to stealthily deliver nukes (eliminating the counter-strike)...