meteors, for invasion they are cheaper and a lot more deadly.

Tho admittedly as long as you stick to airburst nukes you probably have less to clean up after.

Again in another post, I mentioned that we get all that. 

Drengin and their damn Spore weapons, GOD HOW I HATE THEM!!

Also bombardment and Core Detonation, both come with the cost of LOWERING the planet Quality permanently. So you can nuke your enemies Class 15 capital world back to the STONE AGE and it will be a class 4. But hey you crushed them right?

Mass Drivers (the original "rods from God") give you a huge mushroom cloud bigger than any nuke ever could.

Small rocks on the size of a car will give a more than a Megaton explosive yield, more if they're significantly accelerated when being launched.

Using tiny asteroids (which are on the order of 100m+ in diameter) will produce impacts on the order of a GigaTon.

Thems make nice 'shrooms.

nukes actually dont work very well as explosives in space, because there is no atmosphere to create a shockwave with. Furthermore most of the blast will not be centered on your target, and its hard to make a shaped charge nuke. On top of that the EMP will hurt you as bad as it will the enemy. So i wouldn't shoot em at poor trade ships.

Nukes by themselves also don't really take away a lot of air, let alone atmosphere. Removing oxygen and/or the atmosphere in a short timeframe is very impractical. Probably want to go with plasma bombardment for that, or maybe tons and tons of some chemical that binds oxygen very strongly, shouldn't be to big a deal if you can terraform.

Really nukes are pretty useless if you have space tech, and imo the only reason they will stay relevant in the real world for the next 100 orso years is because railguns can't shoot around the curvature of the earth and i don't see a space based railgun large enough to level cities happening either politically or engineering wise.  

Combat viewer with nukes *drools*

The classics are always the best

But everything is atomized!

I'll settle for launching some nightmare torpedoes into a planet or ship at the very least. :/

DARCA

Stop doing that thing you're doing its annoying.

I just want to slowly watch the flames burn over the enemy planet. What weapon could do that. Just "scorched earth" a planet

But can napalm be efficiently deployed on every inch of the enemy's planet from space, because I want the sky to weep tears of fire, the seas to be filled with waves of fire, the ground to be a infernal hell-fire, and the very air to scorch the life out of any who dare to breath it 

Napalm would probably be a more effective means of attaining your desired result than a nuclear weapon would be, simply because a nuclear blast is never going to cause the sky to "weep tears of fire" or fill the seas with "waves of fire." The first of these implies the presence of significant amounts of discrete blobs of burning material, which would be more convenient to create with dropping some form of incendiary than by dropping a nuclear weapon, and unlike the nuclear weapon you can theoretically sustain the rain of burning debris for a very long time. The nuclear blast "just" creates a big cloud, possibly with sufficient burning material to fulfill your wish (though I doubt it), and then it's over fairly quickly. Filling the seas with "waves of fire" implies the addition of a flammable material, such as oil, to the surface of the seas and igniting it, and napalm or  a similar incendiary will work for that; the other interpretation of turning the seas to fire would imply adding something that combines with (salt)water in an exothermic reaction. As far as turning the ground into an infernal hellfire and causing the air to scorch the life out of any who breath it, these seem to be much more within the realm of standard incendiaries than in the realm of nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, if you really did want to deploy a weapon on "every inch" of an enemy planet, napalm would be a significantly cheaper option than a nuclear bomb would be.

A further option which could produce similar results would just be to drop a large asteroid on the planet. This would most likely be considerably easier than either bringing a sufficient number of nuclear weapons into play or saturating the planet with incendiaries, as there will most likely be a large number of suitably large asteroids in any given star system, and the only required investment to deploy it would be a number of the space equivalent of tugboats, or perhaps a bit of time spent strapping engines of one form or another onto the asteroid. None of these choices would be terribly useful if you were planning on colonizing the world afterwards, though the incendiaries probably produce the smallest number of long-term issues (though if you really did consume the world's atmosphere in a fireball, you might need a spacesuit or an enclosed habitat for any potential colonists for a very long time; nuclear weapons and asteroids would have similar problems, in addition to the radioactivity issue of nuclear weapons and the damage to the planet surface caused by a large asteroid impact).

Look up "fuel-air explosives" or "thermobaric weapons." Conventional incendiaries would also work, particularly if you want to watch the fires "slowly" spread across the planet.

Yes, you are.

I was thinking of those when I said napalm. They would do a much better job of making the world burn.

For the record, it was a sarcastic joke. And this is turning really dark. Lol