What exactly are those things, except a) knowing the difference of scale in energies involved, and b) stability of cyclones? A random person off the street won't know any better, and a random faculty member from a random university won't likely know better either.
It's not a dumb question to ask, and the answer requires somewhat specialist knowledge.
>this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.
The usual thing people think of as "fallout" is the result of low-altitude detonation, where the explosion draws up dirt/dust/water vapor, makes some of that radioactive, and creates a cloud of radioactive particulates that then settles in a large area downwind of the explosion. This is the massively dangerous fallout that's usually associated with nuclear weapons.
TL;DR: air bursts != ground-level bursts, and if one doesn't know about the energy scale difference involved, it doesn't seem so dumb to ask if detonating a nuke high up in the cyclone would be helpful.
Are you saying you and Trump are correct not to trust NOAA, and that Stan Goldenberg and Dr. Hugh Willoughby who wrote the article are spreading misinformation?
Stan Goldenberg's scientific contributions: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/202207...
Stan Goldenberg on Conan O'Brien -- Promoting CYCLONE! by National Geographic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SONzPlYCQis
Dr. Hugh Willoughby: https://case.fiu.edu/about/directory/profiles/willoughby-hug...
Tag: Hugh Willoughby: https://noaahrd.wordpress.com/tag/hugh-willoughby/
So what are your qualifications, or are you just another armchair pundit off the street, attempting to argue that Trump isn't dumb to ignore what top expert scientists keep telling him about preventing climate change and not nuking hurricanes?