3 ms·

It's odd that he would pick Hiroshima as his example, out of a war in which: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

It's odd that he would pick Hiroshima as his example, out of a war in which: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Over 70 million people, the majority of them civilians, were killed, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.

quoderat 18y ago
The suddenness and completeness of nuclear annihilation is what makes people fearful -- even though, yes, fire-bombing can do the same thing. There's a reason "nuclear" is a fear-word and "fire-bombing" just isn't. He picked it as a point of data that everyone understands, that has deep resonance, and that everyone is familiar with. Communication generally works better that way.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  There's a reason "nuclear" is a fear-word and "fire-bombing" just isn't. What is that reason? The power of urban legend? The suddenness and completely of nuclear annihilation is what makes people fearful Does suddenness and completeness of nuclear annihilation exist? It seems not to exist. http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com+buildings http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com...
  - quoderat 18y ago
    Are you being deliberately daft? One bomb -- not millions of firebombs requiring thousands of planes -- does a pretty good job of destroying just about everything at ground zero, and after that as the radius increases, yes, the destruction lessens, but it's still pretty impressive. And that's from one bomb only: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects/nuclearwpneffctcalc.html http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects... Is this a prank, or do you really think nukes really are as benign as you seem to think? Is your next argument to be that, hey, white phosphorus isn't that bad for the skin after all?
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      One bomb [...] does a pretty good job of destroying just about everything at ground zero Did you read my links? The Hiroshima bomb destroyed old buildings, not modern buildings. Nearly 800 people survived near ground zero in modern concrete buildings, despite blast overpressures of 15-20 psi. http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2008/05/philip-j-dolans-formerly-secret.html http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2008/05/philip-j-dolans-former... in two reinforced concrete office buildings, at [distances between 0.3 and 0.4 mile from ground zero in Hiroshima], almost 90 percent of the nearly 800 occupants survived more than 20 days, although some died later of radiation injury. [...] of nearly 5,000 students [within a mile of ground zero at Hiroshima] who were shielded in one way or another, only 26 percent were fatalities. ... survival in Hiroshima was possible in buildings at such distances that the overpressure in the open was 15 to 20 pounds per square inch.

quoderat 18y ago

The suddenness and completeness of nuclear annihilation is what makes people fearful -- even though, yes, fire-bombing can do the same thing. There's a reason "nuclear" is a fear-word and "fire-bombing" just isn't. He picked it as a point of data that everyone understands, that has deep resonance, and that everyone is familiar with. Communication generally works better that way.

gravitycop 18y ago
There's a reason "nuclear" is a fear-word and "fire-bombing" just isn't. What is that reason? The power of urban legend? The suddenness and completely of nuclear annihilation is what makes people fearful Does suddenness and completeness of nuclear annihilation exist? It seems not to exist. http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com+buildings http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com...
- quoderat 18y ago
  Are you being deliberately daft? One bomb -- not millions of firebombs requiring thousands of planes -- does a pretty good job of destroying just about everything at ground zero, and after that as the radius increases, yes, the destruction lessens, but it's still pretty impressive. And that's from one bomb only: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects/nuclearwpneffctcalc.html http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects... Is this a prank, or do you really think nukes really are as benign as you seem to think? Is your next argument to be that, hey, white phosphorus isn't that bad for the skin after all?
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    One bomb [...] does a pretty good job of destroying just about everything at ground zero Did you read my links? The Hiroshima bomb destroyed old buildings, not modern buildings. Nearly 800 people survived near ground zero in modern concrete buildings, despite blast overpressures of 15-20 psi. http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2008/05/philip-j-dolans-formerly-secret.html http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2008/05/philip-j-dolans-former... in two reinforced concrete office buildings, at [distances between 0.3 and 0.4 mile from ground zero in Hiroshima], almost 90 percent of the nearly 800 occupants survived more than 20 days, although some died later of radiation injury. [...] of nearly 5,000 students [within a mile of ground zero at Hiroshima] who were shielded in one way or another, only 26 percent were fatalities. ... survival in Hiroshima was possible in buildings at such distances that the overpressure in the open was 15 to 20 pounds per square inch.