>nukes are why we don't have massive wars anymore

Then what about chemical weapons that could've been airdropped over foreign territories prior to nukes? WMDs existed before nukes but those didn't have a deterrent effect. Nukes aren't even that bad outside their immediate radius which is rather short.

>>17829184 (OP)
>Then what about chemical weapons that could've been airdropped over foreign territories prior to nukes
They had to be delivered via payload and not an automated missile defense system. If you're chemical bombing civilians then that means you've already gained air superiority and thus btfo the enemy.

>>17829196
*plane
not payload

>>17829196
So why didn't the Luftwaffe and Royal Air Force use chemical weapons?

>>17829184 (OP)
>Nukes aren't even that bad outside their immediate radius which is rather short.
You're right. One nuke being detonated is not a big deal to the overall world. Even 50 wouldn't be. But 10 000 would.
What dumbass would only fire 1 nuke? If you're pushing that little red button, you're doing it right. Do you think if a nuclear state with second strike capability that got nuked once would go "let's hold back; they only did 1"

>>17829209
Fake war.

because chemical weapons are a giga meme that are so easy to counter even your basic civilian has ways to deal with it

>>17829661
*deflects your nuke*

nukes deter more through vibes than actual reality
if you exploded each nuke on a city nothing would happen to the global climate, nuclear winter and radiation (apart from initial blast) are myths

>>17830679
>>17829184 (OP)
if isreal had dropped a nuke on gaza instead of thousands of bombs, then, fewer would have died

>>17829184 (OP)
>Nukes aren't even that bad outside their immediate radius which is rather short.
They have a radius measured in miles and persistent fallout will kill anyone too close to the blast zone within days or weeks in what is likely THE most painful way to die as your fucking blood vessels and organs melt until they stop working, to say nothing of the weeks and months of unpleasantness that follow even a single nuclear strike.

People on here who say nukes aren't that bad sincerely don't know what nukes DO. Mustard gas and similar chemical weapons don't cause the same level of material destruction. It was only VX and similar nerve agents that really pushed chemical weaponry into the WMD category. Nuclear attacks are measured in megadeaths. Chemical attacks outside of the most virulent bioweapons or nerve agents are vulnerable to wind and water and while dangerous to large areas, will not start a million fires and darken the skies. A chemical weapon is like a plague. A nuke is every natural disaster happening at once.

>>17829209
>Hitler orders the use of wunderwaffen
>Everyone in the chain of command under him understands that the enemy will just put on gas masks, take a few acceptable losses, then exterminate Germany as an entity
>They say "no" and Hitler shoots himself in his cuckbunker

>Churchill orders the RAF to wipe out Germany using chemical weapons
>Even if none of them just say "no", the stockpiles were stupidly low and makes such an attack ineffective
>Everyone freaks the fuck out and immediately demands he resign, the colonies likely turning their backs on the British for an act of unrepentant genocide
>British influence is tanked and the war isn't even fucking over yet

>>17830679
Bro we have hazes from wildfires and dust storms on other continents. Imagine a major city with every gas station, power grid, and person on fire and burning for fucking weeks. Imagine multiple major cities doing this. Imagine it's happening across the fucking planet. What do you imagine will happen? That smoke goes up into space and turns into stars? Get fucking real anon.

>>17829184 (OP)
hey look, it's monke khan

>>17830710
Why would americans create such a horrible weapon

>>17830717
I agree with your post, but it's answering the wrong question: why didn't this have a deterrent effect? Did they just call each other's bluffs? Why doesn't that happen now?