Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today.
That contradicts the whole point that a nuke will destroy humans but leave the environment intact. A bomb of any kind destroys ecosystems. If humans reclaim the cities, it’s not a “net positive” for the environment, despite the cynicism that’s in the statement.
“Land back” is a much better approach since land under indigenous jurisdiction has much more biodiversity than average and especially than bombed land.
To be fair, people and airplanes are very bad for the environment.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a tactical nuke was a net positive for the environment.
A nuke destroys whole ecosystems…
Plenty of things will survive it, and the removal of the humans in the area may be a net positive.
Chernobyl is doing pretty well now that it’s completely uninhabitable by humans…
Humans do that too https://youtu.be/bmVGwOP_zi8?si=lobEy6mBiIRCVmoL
So do we… at least the nuke stops killing new things after a bit.
Define “a bit”, please
Few months/years. The radioactive isotopes created in the explosion have a short half life. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today.
That contradicts the whole point that a nuke will destroy humans but leave the environment intact. A bomb of any kind destroys ecosystems. If humans reclaim the cities, it’s not a “net positive” for the environment, despite the cynicism that’s in the statement.
“Land back” is a much better approach since land under indigenous jurisdiction has much more biodiversity than average and especially than bombed land.
Perhaps 1 minute?