One of the most unintuitive concepts in thinking about Cold War strategy is the assertion that explicitly targeting the opponent&#x27;s civilian instead of military targets was <i>morally superior</i>: targeting military first (counterforce targets <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Counterforce" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Counterforce</a>) would potentially prevent retaliation and thus allow an aggressive first strike. Targeting civilian (countervalue targets <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Countervalue" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Countervalue</a>) would ensure destruction and thus be inherently defensive.<p>It makes my head (and heart) hurt to think about it and I&#x27;m glad that I didn&#x27;t have to make those kinds of decisions. I can see how it can (and did) lead to madness and the kind of irrational thinking satirized in Dr Strangelove and other stories.