So after reading Lynn Eden's chapter, "Complete Ruin", I now understand that damage from a nuclear explosion is much greater than typically accounted for, due to mass fire. But, I ask myself, what is the practical side of this knowledge? How does this affect planning? Does this necessitate that we follow Chris Quillen's recommendation of "granting DOD expanded authority to declare National Defense Areas..." because there won't be any local response to a nuclear attack? (Does anyone know what plausible kiloton ranges exist for a suitcase bomb? Could a nuclear terrorist attack create a mass fire, or is that unlikely?)
We are not going to reinforce our buildings to withstand such an attack, and we probably won't upgrade our aircraft carriers either. So what good does this knowledge serve, other than that we may have to modify our response to a nuclear attack? Does the increased severity of a nuclear strike necessitate that we stress the doctrine of preemption? What changes on the offensive side? Other than doing a fine job of illuminating the details, I want to know what, if anything, Lynn Eden's telling us. Ladies and Gentlemen?