> wouldn't biological or chemical weapons kill more people than nukes? yes, but maintaining the infrastructure around storage and manufacture is worse than nukes. it is stupidly expensive and sensitive work. the enviromental damage is worse too as nuclear detonations are one of the most modeled disasters and continuity or post reconstruction plans would be easy to carry out around the after effects. the knock on effects of bio weapons have no such model and the collateral could be on par with making large swathes of land truly uninhabitable.
United Kingdom