I would back into it from the basis that the Tomahawk missile as it exists in 2022 is a joke.<p>Note that there are roughly 1000 Tomahawks in the arsenal, they cost well above $1 million a piece and the time to replace them would be a few years. The unitary warhead on them now packs insufficient punch to justify the cost of the missile. Against that 40km long column north of Kyiv these would destroy about one vehicle a piece, which would hurt the Russians but by no means stop the attack, even if we used all the missiles we have.<p>The old nuclear variant had a a high yield (150 kT) and a low yield (basically a neutron bomb) setting. The low yield would have a roughly 1 km kill radius even against troops in tanks, so 20 or so missiles could stop that column.<p>In between there was a cluster bomb warhead that was several times more effective than the unitary warhead. Cluster bombs have the problem that a few percent of the bomblets fail to detonate leaving behind a dangerous condition that could go on for decades. Their removal from arsenals leaves behind a big gap.