I was thinking about nuclear warfare recently. Sure it's very annoying once your cities are bombed into oblivion. But this strategic defense structure offers too much of safety against nuclear bombardment. Plus nuclear missiles feel somewhat underwhelming considering their resource price. 1. Not too long ago I thought nuclear bombs can be shot down by fighters/mobile AA and this balanced them with nuclear missiles quite nicely. However considering how things really are (both weapons being invulnerable to AA), nuclear missile feels very underwhelming by providing just a bit more range and detonation radius over nuclear bomb. It's really a lot better to build 2 bombs instead of 1 missile, especially when uranium is scarce and you're not Russia/chose Autocracy. Even while being Russia with Autocracy I chose bombs over missiles quite often. So at least make range of ICMBs almost global? For example leave other parameters the same, but increase the range to twice as large that of the bomb's. 2. Strategic defense building also indirectly encourages you to build bombs, since it has identical modifiers against both these weapons. What about having different modifiers? Also lowering chances to detonate a bomb/missile without damage to the city? In return it could decrease damage done to population and city buildings. Curious to hear your opinions.