[quote=@Monochromatic Rainbow]
[@Willy Vereb] You actually make excellent points, and I will concede that you know more about this than I, and I haven't put a lot of thought into this, which I intend to rectify. So if my plan is Swiss cheese, I'm not surprised.

I am however, reluctant to use nukes because of their connotations, and wonder what you could suggest as an alternative to an easily interceptable weapon like a "Rod from God" and a weapon like a fusion warhead (and I am aware of fusion's lack of fallout) with the connotations it carries.

I was actually thinking spaceship batteries, but again, I haven't been able to put too much thought into military matters.
[/quote]I think at roughly equivalent level of energy everything looks like a nuke, so the connotations would be there.
:lol

On the other hand who needs weapons of mass destruction to begin with?
Their power is mostly just a waste and they are mostly good for terror.
Although well if you do need a weapon for terestrial bombardment then I do suggest kinetic bombs. That is nothing but dropping random mass from space. Or if precision is required use smaller munitions but en-masse.
Good'ol missiles can also help but most of the time their explosive content would be an unneded surplus for terestrial bombardment. Gravity would accelerate the misile to such speed its own KE would be greater than the energy of its explosive.
They say anything at 3km/s carries its own mass in TNT explosive power.
Alternatively if you have a Type IB ship (big-ass fusion reactor thus sufficient energy output) you may try to snipe down to the surface via lasers and particle weapons. Whichever makes you feel better.
You can empty gigajoules of energy with ease which is kind of equal to dropping a 1000lbs bomb.