You either believe in nukes. In which case it's mutually assured destruction. It means annihilation. It theoretically can become planetary, but at least the majority of a nation fired on. And when they have more nukes than the nation they're firing at. It often becomes more than just a theory. Partners, defense pacts, alliances, could see far more involved when it comes to warfare, and any placement of them often means multiple launches by separate nations. Causing? Okay. Simple not bullshit. Bullshit denying them.

We can then debate strategy, firing at, and tactical use. Obviously there isn't much strategy, first strike, knock out capability. It effectively is the military, population, and infrastructure welding them, or simply firing them first and often in regards to being targeted by opposing warfare. There is also firing after being fired on. It a can translate into a confirmation of an incoming attack that can see them returned, or it's by direct attack. Outside of this there are faster tactical nukes. These have yet to become engaged, and they'll likely be directed purposefully at an enemy to force surrender, or destroy any capabilities.

Who really cares? Except it's not really a case of ohh that's a green zone, and that's a red zone, when it comes to nukes. Like the former poster was suggesting. Please leave the Statue of Libery standing. It's UNESCO. No, fuck that. It's some other MAD doctrine.