3 ms·
> Quite a few more died in the end than a nuke could manage. Are you including the ensuing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? Even then, I think you're serio
by nordsieck 4y ago
> Quite a few more died in the end than a nuke could manage.
Are you including the ensuing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Even then, I think you're seriously underestimating the number of casualties a relatively low yield nuke (in the context of modern strategic weapons) would produce if it hit a city like New York.
- Grimburger 4y agoYes that was the implication. Depends who you ask and talking about it at the time was full of controversy, but I have seen half a million excess deaths in the end for Iraq and maybe half that for Afghanistan?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ouid 4y agoI think you mightbe underestimating either the population density of a major city or the kill everything radius of a thermonuclear weapon.
- solveit 4y agoAnd the aftermath of a nuclear war. If they're going to count the people who died after the war proper, they should count them in both scenarios.
- macksd 4y agoWould a nuke not have also led to wars like that?