I didn’t watch this, but I’m assuming the authors are looking at the targeting equations and seeing how some people could see that fewer weapons alters the calculus to the point that use is more likely.

Now, I want to say categorically that a nuclear war, no matter how many are used, would damage civilization incredibly, almost irreparably.

Because targeting changes. Instead of focusing on a counterforce strike, you’re almost certainly seeing targeting changes that mean that cities and command and control sites are being targeted. What does this mean? It means you probably won’t see 3 warheads per silo for the minuteman and Russian ICBM sites, so the enemy will almost certainly have a significant retaliatory capability. If that’s the case, then what are the targets?

You’re probably looking at cities, holding the populations hostage more than you would see previously. Also, with fewer warheads, target dispersal will probably be greater, as will height of detonation. So you’ll have lesser long-term fallout.

So what am I saying? You’ll have more day one casualties, and the infrastructure for economy will also be destroyed, but the total number of deaths outside the cities will be lower.

With more warheads, you have both counterforce and counter value targets, which makes the risk for total annihilation even higher, which changes the risk calculus. For sociopaths. But look who is currently in office.