The crux of my argument is that Nukes as a weapon have far greater significance beyond their tactical power. Nuclear weapons have changed diplomacy and how superpowers/nuclear powers do business with each other e.g Cold War. I've only watched my flatmate's games and he is a bit of a n00b and not a great player - as yet he's not built nukes - so correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't it be great, especially given the new diplomacy system, for nukes to have a much greater and more defined diplomatic/strategic role? They produce rhetoric in your opponents but don't change the balance of the game as much as they could/should. It's too easy for big players to go to war in the modern game. Has their ever been a full-scale war between two declared nuclear powers? I think not. For example, once you've built nukes why not allow AI/Human players to set their posture ('first strike, pre-emptive, retaliatory strike only, no tactical use i.e. against units etc.) and perhaps even their position (allow people to bluff about their capability or be ambiguous about it). This could have diplomatic consequences (-5 for retaining a first strike policy) and other effects on your opponents. I know Civ relies on keeping itself as simple as possible but....I often find the modern game can get stale and greater roles for nukes could add more texture, reflecting their role in our world, the replicating of which being part of Civ's brief. You could make lots of arguments for game changes - I just thought of this one and think it could be cool.