3 ms·

Why isn’t it?

• JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Why isn’t it? Because the effects of a nuclear meltdown are closer to that of a chemical attack and far away from that of a thermonuclear detonation. Blurry red lines cease to be lines.
  • ABeeSea 5y ago
    If the plant melts down and explodes sending nuclear material for 100s of miles that wouldn’t be nuclear war?
    • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > If the plant melts down and explodes sending nuclear material for 100s of miles that wouldn’t be nuclear war? No. Because, again, if you detonated a thermonuclear weapon above that same space, the difference would be night and day.
• vkou 5y ago
  Because a reactor explosion is a small chemical reaction, with the yield of a single medium-sized conventional bomb, that also happens to scatter some amount of radioactive crap into the surrounding environment. Whereas a nuclear explosion is a self-sustaining nuclear reaction, which produces a fireball that can engulf an entire city. Given the option, I'd far rather stand a mile downwind of an exploding reactor[1], than a mile from ground zero of any modern nuclear weapon[2]. The solution to the first problem is walking away, and trying not to breathe too much of the crap in. There is no solution to the second problem, because you, and everything in miles around you would be instantly incinerated. [1] https://youtu.be/xulAgMNK5Jk?t=193 https://youtu.be/xulAgMNK5Jk?t=193 [2] https://youtu.be/r3l0G3XOUv4 https://youtu.be/r3l0G3XOUv4 - the fireball is a mile across. Anyone for miles outside the fireball zone will be turned into charcoal. Each modern ICBM carries 6-12 of these. That is what nuclear war will look like. Both sides in a nuclear conflict will fire hundreds of them, against opposing cities.