@Mr_NutterButter @beardalaxy I would argue 6000 HE+bomblet bombs could potentially be worse than a single nuke, as generally the fallout is only really bad short term, but long term isn't a problem as really hot radioactive isotopes tend to have short half life's, plus fallout tends to get washed out of the sky when it rains and dilution works wonders.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are examples of this - the radiation is no longer a problem - you can visit ground 0 and not suffer any effects.
High explosive conventional bombs tend to use extremely toxic chemicals that do stick around and do environmental damage (plus don't undergo decay on their own).
Finally, a nuke dropped 80 years ago isn't going to be able to kill anyone else, while statistically a certain percentage of those 6000 (bomblets included) will be duds that can go off when disturbed, which is an issue as children love grabbing and brightly colored spheres that look like toys - then the bomblet goes off.
I would say a nuke and 6000 bombs are potentially equally as bad, except the former is really bad short term and then it's over and the latter is bad long term, although certain circumstances may change this.
Imagine how far humanity could have gotten by now if it wasn't for the "dynamic duo" of war and proprietary software.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are examples of this - the radiation is no longer a problem - you can visit ground 0 and not suffer any effects.
High explosive conventional bombs tend to use extremely toxic chemicals that do stick around and do environmental damage (plus don't undergo decay on their own).
Finally, a nuke dropped 80 years ago isn't going to be able to kill anyone else, while statistically a certain percentage of those 6000 (bomblets included) will be duds that can go off when disturbed, which is an issue as children love grabbing and brightly colored spheres that look like toys - then the bomblet goes off.
I would say a nuke and 6000 bombs are potentially equally as bad, except the former is really bad short term and then it's over and the latter is bad long term, although certain circumstances may change this.
Imagine how far humanity could have gotten by now if it wasn't for the "dynamic duo" of war and proprietary software.
@Suiseiseki @Mr_NutterButter from what i understand, atom bombs detonate in the air and that's why nagasaki and hiroshima are totally livable now, whereas something like the chernobyl reactor meltdown was on the ground and so the radiation will be there a lot longer. as in, potentially thousands of years.
whereas more traditional bombs explode on impact, so if they're hitting the surface they could potentially have longer lasting effects on the environment, but i admittedly have absolutely 0 idea if that's even the case. if they're using a fuck ton of chemicals i can see that still having a noticeable impact.
@beardalaxy With nukes there's the option of either an airburst or a surface burst, but airbursts maximize the destruction, so typically an airburst is chosen.
Airbursts tend to dump more of the resulting radioactive isotopes high into the atmosphere, while surface bursts tends to dump a larger percentage onto the ground, but I don't think there's any real difference long term once the short-lived isotopes have decayed.
Nukes tend to use a small amount of radioactive material compared to nuclear reactors, which typically have tons(?) of slightly enriched uranium or plutonium in rods.
The reason why Chernobyl is still an issue is due to the quantity of radioactive isotopes with very long half life's being released into the environment.
Almost everyone around Chernobyl is livable now except for the immediate area around the reactor (which is now contained by a sarcophagus) and the red forest (the evacuation area was unnecessarily large, but no-one ended going back).
The wildlife in the area is now going great, as it turns out that human activities are a lot more lethal to wildlife than nuclear radiation.
Wikipedia does document radiation effects and the results of Hiroshima and Chernobyl extensively and fairly accurately if you'd like to read more into it.
Airbursts tend to dump more of the resulting radioactive isotopes high into the atmosphere, while surface bursts tends to dump a larger percentage onto the ground, but I don't think there's any real difference long term once the short-lived isotopes have decayed.
Nukes tend to use a small amount of radioactive material compared to nuclear reactors, which typically have tons(?) of slightly enriched uranium or plutonium in rods.
The reason why Chernobyl is still an issue is due to the quantity of radioactive isotopes with very long half life's being released into the environment.
Almost everyone around Chernobyl is livable now except for the immediate area around the reactor (which is now contained by a sarcophagus) and the red forest (the evacuation area was unnecessarily large, but no-one ended going back).
The wildlife in the area is now going great, as it turns out that human activities are a lot more lethal to wildlife than nuclear radiation.
Wikipedia does document radiation effects and the results of Hiroshima and Chernobyl extensively and fairly accurately if you'd like to read more into it.
