Thing about the Nazis - they weren't interested in wiping out everyone, the were interested in wiping out everyone genetically inferior that happened to have resources they wanted. And that's the big hangup with nuclear weapons as "weapons" - they aren't selective, and they're pretty much area denial weapons. It's like Rome V. Carthage - you don't salt the soil if you plan on using it.

The nice thing about MAD is we never really tested it. Did it work? Obviously! We're still here! Or was that something else? Obviously! "Mad" is in the title! Are you crazy? I'll say this - there isn't much evidence that any of the ideologically-driven organizations have ever pursued nukes. Iran is interested in nukes because, as their minister of defense pointed out, the United States has made exactly zero overtures of hostility towards the one country on the "axis of evil" with nukes. To the best of my knowledge, and to the best of my reading, there have been no credible examples of any terrorist organizations (other than Aum Shinrikyo) attempting to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. Even the most radical of islamist freakballs can't assume that the entire blast radius of a nuclear weapon is chockablock with nothing but infidels and kaffirs.

Perimeter was driven more by a Soviet belief that the Americans were crazy more than anything else... and the fact that it would have taken the Soviets something like six hours to trigger a nuclear response. So... rational, in its own way. And I'll also point this out: Not even MacArthur wanted to use nukes and back then, the Soviets had mmmmmmmmmmmmaybe one nuke, and it wouldn't have been "mutually assured destruction" by any stretch of the imagination.

Realistically speaking? Large-scale weapons (and weapons systems) are an economic and jobs project. Swords cost. Plowshares are more useful... but you know how many schools you need to build. You know how many roads you need? Strategic bombers? Well... can you ever truly have enough?

Are you sure?

(Do you hate freedom?)