I understand your earlier point of military wars not exactly being rational - but:

Is it really moving the goalposts to say that comparing the economic impact spread over decades isn't the same as one experienced relatively instantaneously?

Or the risk of retaliation from a nuclear power isn't comparable to guerilla warfare?

Moving goalposts or not, it just doesn't seem to be an apt comparison to gauge military rationality.

You’re the one who moved them the other direction by bringing up Hiroshima in relation to contemporary nuclear war where all weapons in play would be thermonuclear (and there would be more than two).

>countries aren't rational, because Taliban