The end of the
Cold War brought with it a feeling of rest, an acknowledgment that the possibility of nuclear war had been once and for all averted. These ideas were really nice for about five minutes, until the number of nuclear states started multiplying. In 1991, the
Soviet Union, the
United States, the United
Kingdom, France and China openly had
nuclear weapons, with Israel holding on to a "secret" nuclear stockpile. Less than 20 years later, (historically speaking, a pretty short period) India,
Pakistan and
North Korea have joined the club, and Iran is either close to building a weapon or just hasn't had the balls to try one out yet.
As with any other readily available weapon, the question of whether they will be used in warfare becomes more of a when than an if. Considering the effectiveness of tactical vs. strategic nuclear warfare, especially for countries that choose a nuclear program over, say, building hospitals, it becomes clear that nuclear weapons will be used against cities. Launching mini-nukes from howitzers is fine and well if you've got 2,000 warheads on
ICBMs back home and you're aiming at a mile wide column of Russian tanks advancing on a wide-open German field, but if you've got 2 nukes and your enemy has 10 times your population, it's bye-bye Bombay.
To help out our XXIst Century generals decide exactly which of the World's 10 largest cities they will decimate, I've devised a modest little points system. Just like the
Bernina Designer 1000 sowing machine, its beauty lies in its simplicity. The city with the most points is the one that is most nukable, from an ethical standpoint*. The top 10 most populated cities per-se were chosen, rather than the 10 largest metropolitan areas, not only because Karachi only appears on the former list, but because large municipalities have larger concentrations of population, thus making them better military targets (this is merely a statistical matter, of use only to those inclined towards mass slaughter of civilians).
To avoid boring the shit out of anyone who hasn't already claimed bored shitless status after three paragraphs of senseless banter, I'll avoid describing the points system in its entirety and rather stick to the principles. Cities in countries with nuclear weapons will get shitloads of points, more so if they have a higher risk of political instability that'll get the nukes in the hands of people even more stupid than those who decided to build them in the first place. Just so you know, only 4 of the World's 10 largest cities are not in a nuclear state. So we'll just have to let
Sao Paulo,
Mexico City, Seoul and Istambul live. Maybe not Istambul, since it's under the NATO nuclear umbrella, and for that matter, it's somewhat naïve to think Seoul is not a candidate for nuclear destruction.
Moving on, it's also nice to think that the nuked city won't necessarily be the most populated, just because being willing to murder 8,000,000 innocent people doesn't mean one would be willing to murder 10,000,000. After all, we're talking about generals here, not savages. As such, the strategist behind 21st century nuclear warfare will be someone with great and deep appreciation for the cultural and economic achievements of humanity, so cities with great monuments or economic clout are off limits.
Let's face it, no reasonable nuke yielding great leader would nuke any city other than Karachi. It's not that there's anything wrong with Karachi in particular, it's just not as big as Mumbai, not as historically significant as Beijing, not as pretty as Moscow, and no one would be stupid enough to waste a nuke on Sao Paulo or Mexico City. I'm very sorry for all Karachians, or however they're called (see? I bet no one knows what to call them, that's how much we all give a shit about Karachi!) but they're just gonna have to take one for the team. Besides, serves them right for giving their city such a silly name.
* If you don't find having an ethical standpoint regarding the choice of civilian targets for nuclear warfare funny, you're either dead or a vegan.