Yeah, but having to pay for so many maluses means we're very vulnerable and will be massively besieged with problems that could easily go entirely out of control and wreck us.
The Panama Canal is Russian-held; we are not remotely ready to tackle them that hard.
It's questionable. Tempting, but very costly.
Honestly it might be better for them to use it on us than New York. The death toll would be horrifying, even if it would mean that Russia probably gives up on trying to stop people from invading Victoria.
What, you couldn't budget for a nuke?
Kind-of difficult to do that without a delivery system.
Assuming we survive, Technological Conservatism will make the game less fun.
How, exactly?
I would argue that the reverse is true. Smuggling the bomb into a foreign city would probably be easier than ensuring it just happens to be in exactly the right place to do really serious harm to an invading army and that nothing goes wrong with the "bury bomb, don't have it spotted, push button, blow up enemy army" plan. Among other things, because smuggling the bomb into a foreign city doesn't result in a "fuuuu-" moment if the enemy takes a route of march along a different road than you expected, and isn't as time-critical.
Well, if we COULD get a bomber, we could drop it- the B83 is an air-dropped munition. But we'd need a plane and some careful maintenance work.
Honestly I think most of us feel roughly as you do, it's just that by this point we've had like 20 plans suggested and the discussion is largely petering out, so about the only plans still being suggested are very unconventional "hot take" plans.
Especially if it results in our citizens distrusting the very foreign equipment that they're relying on for an edge.
