Yes, but at this point it would be cheaper and quicker to have spacex fly to orbit, capture a 5 ton rock and drop it on a city.

There’s a reason Iran has been ‘weeks’ from making a bomb for decades now.

That would be a really shitty nuke. Like around 1% of a Davy Crockett.

Use a bigger rock. I might change the cost by hundreds of millions, and still be less than the billions in development and production for a nuke.

Where do you get these rocks though? There is actually a similar concept that uses tungsten rods instead of rocks.

But the entire thing isn’t really practical. If you want the ability to strike any place on earth in a reasonable time, you have to have hundreds of tungsten rod equipped satellites (or rocks with rocket engines attached to them) in orbit.

I’m not sure it would actually be cheaper then just using nukes on ballistic missiles.

The expense of a delivering the nuke is negligible in comparison to the cost and effort of building a nuke. So much so, that large rocks are more economical than building a nuke at this point.