[quote=@Sigma]
While I am still heavily against Nukes and the Like. Very low-yield, and difficult to manufacture chemical/biological weapons are alright with me. Less damaging then a nuke and provides good story material.
[/quote]Well, by their nature chemical weapons aren't that easy to mass produce. Granted that didn't stop people from amassing tens or even hundreds of thousands of tons of them.
Then again when you compare it to the literal multi-million metric ton of bombs dropped during WW2 (which is only a fraction of munitions they had at store) it's indeed small.
Especially since that's just the raw gas. Not even counting the delivery systems to be made for them. Creating good chemical delivery system is at least somewhat more expensive than a conventional bomb. And that's not counting logistics and building up the industrial park for it.

As for nukes, very low yield nukes could be a fun deterrent at times.
My idea for the killsat did say that anything at around the level of the Fatman or above.
Sub-kiloton tactical nukes are plausible without triggering the system.

On the other hand arbitrarily declaring that nukes are somehow more difficult to make than in OTL is something doesn't sit with me well.
It's apparent that the game does not support actual legit WMDs so if anyone actually makes them it'd meet tons of opposition in the OOC. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

(Albeit without any nuclear test it's indeed true that designing nukes will be more difficult since there's little to no live data to go by. Although sub-kiloton testings may help at times. Actually with such ruling I expect a growth of interest developing relatively clean sub-kiloton nukes which was possible IRL but had little interest since they were much less efficient.)


EDIT: I can't see the map at all. What happened?