You know, it's really hard to tell, look for example the Tchernobyl explosion, it had dire consequences in a great part of Europe and it was not a bomb, only a reactor accident that has nothing to do with the explosion of a bomb. If we only look that on an ecologic point of view, for the size of the accident, the Ukrainian incident has been more damageable for the ecology than Hiroshima if you go proportionally... I think that it could make sense if you consider that the weather would turn the table in the unwanted direction with the really not favorable winds, rate of humidity etc but it could, like you say, effectively be a lot less if the weather plays it easy. The only thing I wonder about this article is: Is that still pertinent to talk about a nuclear war where the goal would be to kill as many persons as possible?
Which part exactly don't you agree with?
Posted by
nameless |
6:29 p.m.
The number of dead make sense, but the environmental effects might be exaggerated. no?
Posted by
Max |
10:40 p.m.
You know, it's really hard to tell, look for example the Tchernobyl explosion, it had dire consequences in a great part of Europe and it was not a bomb, only a reactor accident that has nothing to do with the explosion of a bomb. If we only look that on an ecologic point of view, for the size of the accident, the Ukrainian incident has been more damageable for the ecology than Hiroshima if you go proportionally... I think that it could make sense if you consider that the weather would turn the table in the unwanted direction with the really not favorable winds, rate of humidity etc but it could, like you say, effectively be a lot less if the weather plays it easy.
The only thing I wonder about this article is: Is that still pertinent to talk about a nuclear war where the goal would be to kill as many persons as possible?
Posted by
nameless |
10:08 a.m.