Our trajectory seems bleak nowadays, but really we should be thankful the powermongers are just playing with data rather than inventing new weapons of mass destruction. With hope that topic will resolve itself with pervasive encryption.
Just playing with the data?
"Consistent with the recommendations of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2020 budget request would continue plans to expand U.S. nuclear weapon capabilities."
"Donald Trump suggested firing nuclear weapons into hurricanes to prevent them hitting the US, reports in Washington claim.
The president is said to have raised the idea of bombing hurricanes with senior Homeland Security and national security officials on numerous occasions, dating back as far as 2017."
Note that I also wasn't speaking on the deliberate outcomes of mutually assured destruction, or the perhaps-even-worse outcome of some actor using a small number of nuclear weapons and getting away with it.
> “I got it. I got it. Why don’t we nuke them?” the president evidently interrupted, according to Swan’s source. “They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they’re moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can’t we do that?”
Really, in this alternate reality Trump is asking about disrupting the eye wall of a hurricane with super-heated air? I think both Trump lovers and haters can actually agree this is entirely not credible (for each their chosen reasons).
"American Experince" also turned the book into a film, which was pretty true to the book and worth a watch.
To me it was eye-opening to read about all the close shaves which could easily have ended in catastrophic misinterpretation by one side, and to wonder what might be going on along similar lines today.
The events described in this book were also dramatized in the movie "Thirteen Days".
"Thirteen Days" is an enjoyable movie, but it does overlook the recklessness of some of the Kennedy administration's actions. For a more critical view, see this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-rea...
P0 - WontFix
"He also said the size of each bomb was more than 250 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb, large enough to create a 100% kill zone within a radius of 8.5 miles (13.7 km)."
Four H-bombs rain down on sleepy Spanish fishing village ...
Also, in the other type of bomb that was on board there apparently was a design flaw that could've actually triggered the nuclear detonation after prolonged exposure to extreme heat.
So who found that bug and how? I mean... Yikes.
In the context of a partial/asymmetrical detonation around a warhead - they tried it! 
But what you're going to get is a massive plume of weapons grade plutonium flying in all directions. Depending on where this happens and the wind this could be the end of a few million people.
> What is one-point safe?
> Apart from preventing unauthorized use, it is equally important to ensure that the weapons do not explode accidentally. For example, if it is accidentally dropped during transportation (such incidents have occurred), it should not explode. A nuclear weapon is one-point safe if, when the High Explosive inside the weapon is initiated and detonated at any single point, the probability of producing a nuclear yield exceeding 4 pounds TNT equivalent is less than 1 in one million.
A surprising number of early nuclear devices were not one-point safe.
W69 was designed in early 70s when they had much less safety features. W69 had a design error that made it nuclear detonation possible in the event of a fire.
More seriously, most of the reason they cobbled this together was because the US suddenly cut off access to research after WW2 (because of the McMahon Act ) and the UK had to look as if they were an independent member of the Big (nuclear) Boy's Club. Between this and the Windscale fire , that could've led to absolute disaster.
> If this had happened in the 1980 accident, the rocket motors in the SRAMs, as well as the conventional explosives inside their W69 warheads, used to initiate the thermonuclear reaction, would very likely have exploded. While this may not have triggered a nuclear explosion, it would have thrown a plume of highly radioactive plutonium into the air, easily covering a 60 square mile area, which would have included parts of North Dakota and Minnesota.