What is your most "Radioactive" AKA UNPOPULAR OPINION regarding Nuclear Weapons and Warfare?

Here's mine: the further in time we are from the era of live atomic testing, the more nebulous and abstract the terror and awe factor of a nuclear detonation versus conventional weapons becomes. I believe that, assuming a high (and VERY unlikely) degree of international agreement, diplomacy, and medical/environmental risk mitigation, there is equity in the argument for a demonstrative atmospheric shot. This demonstration is not to solely be a science experiment, but to show policy makers and world leaders appreciate the power they wield in a launch order. To make the most of the demonstration, world leaders must not see a sterilized setting. There must be a comprehensible sense of scale, and an ability to experience some of the unique effects - the feeling of the thermal pulse, the concussion of the blast, their bones visible through skin during the flash. In most instances of world leadership with launch authority, the question of a nuclear response is a desperate political move.

And one less unpopular: a limited nuclear war can be won, and the brutality of such an attack is not outside the scope of the general hell that war can be.