[Webstral]

I appreciate the solid reference to published materials, Kato. Well done. I changed it in my interpretation because I felt this one was one of those things the authors didn't think through to its conclusion. I would say the same for every other airburst over .5Mt against specific soft targets. I believe it is bad politics for either side to be using city-busting nukes against specific economic targets if they want to avoid prompt escalation to a general strategic exchange. The Wilmington strike is of the same character. It's overkill in a manner that suggests the Soviets are playing games and trying to find excuses to kill cities under whatever transparent pretext will serve. It begs retaliation of exactly the same character. One strike like this can be an accident. Multiple strikes like this indicate a pattern and, again, beg retaliation--possibly with interest. If the target genuinely is the petroleum infrastructure, then a 1.5Mt airburst is a highly suspect way to tell the target nation "We're after your petroleum but don't want a city-busting exchange." Again, one can be an accident. Two or more is a pattern.