> Nuclear explosions can kick up a huge storm of stuff into the atmosphere -- that's part of their point.

I've never read that. It's easy enough to do, but the (planned) usage of these weapons (outside of hitting the enemy's heavily hardened targets on the ground) tends to rely on airbursts.

I don't remember either side relying on nuclear winter strategically. The logic of MAD is terrible enough to serve as a deterrent even without maximizing dust in the atmosphere. I remember the disarmament advocates warning of nuclear winter, and the warmongery types minimizing its liklihood.