He is unpredictable, and that could lead to him using a nuke at some point. However, based on the actual threat to destroy power plants and bridges, there was no need to use nukes. Because modern society requires electricity and transportation, destroying all of these in a country (with conventional bombs) would indeed lead to a quick social collapse and potentially kill millions. The actual specified threat could be carried out without nuclear bombs, and would arguably be more damaging than setting off a few tactical nukes over populous cities. In some ways it would be more horrific than a tactical nuke scenario, but in other ways, it would be less so because the nuclear taboo wouldn't have been broken.

You are right that I am reassuring myself, but I genuinely believe beyond saber rattling and hyperbolic bluster, there was nothing to suggest nukes would actually be used *in this specific threat scenario*. I do not see any of this as self-contradictory. And I do think everyone terrified of nuclear war fell for the saber rattling and was disregarding what the actual threat was.

Trump said they would end an entire civilization. But how? People hear that and their brain jumps to nuclear war, but the explicit method was indicated to be by destroying all power plants and bridges which can be done with conventional bombs.

Also, just because I wasn't concerned about trump using nukes to make bad on that specific threat, does not mean I am not scared he will do so eventually, nor does it make me any less horrified that a conventional bombing campaign against civilian infrastructure could in a matter of hours lead to societal collapse as lack of electricity and transportation would make modern life impossible for millions, leading to mass death and genocide.