• @norimee
    link
    555 months ago

    Just some numbers to put into relation :

    | Casualties |

    Hiroshima:- 90,000–166,000 killed

    • 80,000–156,000 civilians
    • 10,000 soldiers
    • 12 Allied prisoners of war

    Nagasaki:- 60,000–80,000 killed

    • 60,000–80,000 civilians
    • 150 soldiers
    • 8–13 Allied prisoners of war

    Total killed (by end of 1945): 150,000–246,000

    Source: Wikipedia - Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Hiroshima:- 90,000–166,000 killed
      80,000–156,000 civilians

      And modern nukes are SIXTY TIMES more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        155 months ago

        Not just that, but far more of them. And also missiles that consist of dozen of smaller warheads inside

        And these missiles can travel to literally any place on earth, no matter where they started, as they follow a sub-orbital trajectory into space

    • @radicalautonomy
      link
      -55 months ago

      And then, in the aftermath of the decision to wipe those cities off the map, the United States said “That worked great. Let’s make thousands more of those.”

      This country is vomitous.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        205 months ago

        Well, the US and every other 1st world country. Nobody wants to be the guy without nuclear weapons when the nuclear war starts - the ones that can’t defend themselves would be easy first targets. That’s what the cold war was all about - 2 countries, each just waiting for the other to drop the bomb they’re sure is coming eventually.

      • @FlexibleToast
        link
        45 months ago

        The thing is, the MAD doctrine works. We enjoy relatively more peace than we had before.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          85 months ago

          It works until it catastrophically fails. That’s the gimmick. You can partly offset the risk by bringing the overall nuke count down to dozens or hundreds per country, but only partly. And how many dictators want to create a small nuclear arsenal these days? It’s the only way to keep others out. Which brings the risk back up.

          • Schadrach
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15 months ago

            And how many dictators want to create a small nuclear arsenal these days? It’s the only way to keep others out.

            I mean, we basically have two classes of countries - those who do not have the power to catastrophically end all life on earth and those who do and sit at the big kids table. The first group is routinely used for dick measuring proxy wars., until they develop nukes and get to join the second group.

          • @nyctre
            link
            35 months ago

            I’m pretty sure that the current situation in Ukraine proves that it works.