4 ms·
You didn't answer the question. There are other types of explosives and incendiaries. Like atomic explosives, none of them are intrinsically military. Hiroshima
by gravitycop 18y ago
You didn't answer the question. There are other types of explosives and incendiaries. Like atomic explosives, none of them are intrinsically military. Hiroshima was especially vulnerable, being essentially a medieval shantytown of wooden huts. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458599 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458599
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com+hiroshima http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com...
Hiroshima: it was not 'vaporised by 6000 °C within an instant': all the wood-frame buildings burned down in a firestorm that developed 30 minutes later
- omarish 18y agoI'm not sure it's possible to determine whether something is of negative value or not. You don't have to look far to read Kranzberg's Laws of Technology, one of which says "Technology is not good, nor bad, nor neutral." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranzberg's_laws_of_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranzberg's_laws_of_technology I'm not denying that explosives and incendiaries cannot be used for good purposes. Like religion, science and technology have good and bad sides. But to assume only one is not looking at the whole picture.
- gravitycop 18y agoIs military strength and/or its application of negative value? If military strength is of positive value, then better weapons are of positive value. Usually, nuclear weapons are better than conventional weapons. If one fails to adequately defend himself from good weapons, it is not entirely someone else's fault.