This is a preview of a conversation I had with my colleague Henry Sikolsky of the Nonproliferation

Policy Education Center about nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons for the battlefield,

strategic nuclear weapons on ICBMs between sovereign states.

Once upon a time, it was about Moscow and Washington, the Cold War, strategic weapons,

and the question was, do we destroy cities, countervalue, or do we destroy the ability

to fire nuclear weapons?

Counter-force.

The decision was made by the U.S. and I believe Moscow was in on this as well.

Cities should not be destroyed.

What you need to do is destroy the ability of the enemy to strike back, so it became

known as the doctrine of counter-force.

Now there are three peer-equal nuclear-armed powers, China, Russia, and the United States,

and it appears that China and Russia are working together.

Do we need to rethink counter-value and counter-force?

Here's Henry.

No.

Bahawkish community thinks that if we can just get more nuclear weapons at the right time,

with other protections of command and control, we can do a much more humane and much more

effective job of deterring China and Russia.

The Dovish community looks at the idea of nuclear weapons and says whether they grind up people,

that was what they originally designed for, they are immoral.

So when someone says, well, we ought to just be brutish and target cities, even they are

...