Explanation for non-native speakers (like me) who didn't know the rule:
The words "how" and "like" clash because "How" already implies manner or appearance, making the addition of "like" (which serves a similar function with "what") superfluous.
"How ___ like" is probably the single most common mistake I see among non-native speakers. Also, unlike other mistakes which can just sound informal, this one "sounds dumb", to use a mean phrase, but it's good to know for people trying to sound proper.
This is also a pet peeve of mine. However, I suspect this bothers us because we’ve grown up with standard “western” English (US/UK/Canada/Australia/etc). “How does X Y like” is common in other forms of English, some of which might even be native (but non-western)! For example, I bet this construction is standard in Indian English. Based on population alone, I think this is a losing battle; English is probably going to adopt the structure we dislike. That’s unfortunate for me and you. But I think fighting it is a fool’s errand.
I suspect this was an editing error versus a conscious choice. That is to say I'm betting that "How" came from a prior revision and they published it before realizing the error. I've done this myself too often. ;D
These are neat images, but it's hard to tell how they differ from long exposures taken without any illumination by atomic blast. I've taken long exposures at night that look very similar.
Like recent Northern Lights occurrences where phone cameras capture them much more vibrantly than they appear to the naked eye. But that might be more of the phone sensor being more sensitive to colors in low light than the human eye is.
It's kinda hard to imagine why on earth you'd ever build a warhead larger than 100kT. At that point it's just destruction for the sake of destruction, not to win a war, but to ensure that everyone loses... Well, that is the point of MAD, but it just seems reckless and inhuman.
Did some research on the yields of the nuclear weapons placed in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis which apparently are now well-known, largely due to information released by Soviet officials and military historians in the decades following the Cold War (specifically in the early 1990s).
While the United States was unaware of the sheer number of warheads at the time (estimating far fewer or none operational), it is now confirmed that approximately 158 nuclear warheads were on the island.
The yields for these specific weapon systems were as follows:
1. Strategic Ballistic Missiles
These were the weapons that triggered the crisis—long-range missiles capable of striking deep into the continental United States.
a) SS-4 Sandal (R-12) Missiles
Yield: ~1 Megaton (1,000 kT)
Status: There were roughly 36 to 40 of these missiles in Cuba. The warheads were present and could have been mated to the missiles within hours. A 1 MT explosion is roughly 60–70 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
b) SS-5 Skean (R-14) Missiles
Yield: ~1 to 2.3 Megatons (1,000–2,300 kT)
Status: The nuclear warheads for these missiles did arrive in Cuba, but the missiles themselves were blocked by the quarantine (blockade) and never reached the island.
2. Tactical (Battlefield) Nuclear Weapons
This is the category that most alarmed historians and officials when it was revealed in the 1990s. The U.S. did not know these were present or operational. If the U.S. had invaded (as was being debated), local Soviet commanders had pre-delegated authority (later rescinded) to use these against American landing forces.
a) FKR-1 (Meteor) Cruise Missiles
Yield: 5 to 14 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were approximately 80 of these warheads. These were ground-launched cruise missiles intended for coastal defense and could have been used to strike the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay or incoming amphibious fleets.
b) Luna (FROG) Artillery Rockets
Yield: 2 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were 12 of these warheads. These were short-range battlefield rockets intended to destroy troop concentrations on the beachheads.
c) IL-28 "Beagle" Bombers
Yield: ~28–30 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were 6 nuclear bombs (likely the RDS-4 type) specifically for these light bombers. The aircraft were capable of striking targets in Florida or regionally.
Very interesting. During the crisis the alternative to the blockade was an airstrike. Did you ever find out how many of these warheads were operational when the decision was made to blockade?
You know what's even more interesting? Putting all that stuff there was just a reaction by the USSR to the USA putting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter into Turkey and Italy.
Makes me wonder how many living people on earth have seen a nuclear explosion with their own eyes. It can't be very high, maybe 1-10 thousand? Not a number you would want to see increase, to be sure.
>There are also pictures of people
enjoying the spectacle that
demonstrate the morbid fascination
that many Americans had with nuclear
weapons at the time.
Was this written with ai? No person in any time period wouldn't be interested. Big explosions are never boring.
In his latest podcast Joe Rogan claimed that John Wayne and others died from cancer caused by radiation from a nuclear test upwind of a movie set for "The Conquerers". Wayne was also a heavy smoker so nobody really knows. Nobody knows how much death and misery the tests caused, or how much war was avoided by nuclear deterence.
By the early 1980s around 40% of the cast and crew had developed cancer, also including Susan Hayward, Agnes Moorehead, and director Dick Powell. And the movie nuclear bombed at the box office.
> "There are also pictures of people enjoying the spectacle that demonstrate the morbid fascination that many Americans had with nuclear weapons at the time."
This is, in my opinion, a stupid statement; people today, with today's sensibilities, writing about people decades, almost a century ago. The was nothing "morbid" about it. It was a new, and extremely powerful technology. Those people were not watching while licking their lips thinking about the people that can be killed with this technology. They were thinking about the "clean and limitless" energy that was supposed to have come from this new technology. Stop trying to foist your "modern" ideals on people many years ago.
On the topic of atomic bombs I have some rhetorical questions
1. What happened to the deadly radioactivity?
2. Would exploding the equivalent amount of TNT look exactly the same?
3. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
4. What happened to the deadly radioactivity in Japan?
5. What is carpet bombing?
6. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
35 comments
[ 392 ms ] story [ 645 ms ] thread"How the Atomic Tests Looked from Los Angeles"
or
"What the Atomic Tests Looked Like from Los Angeles"
just don't mash them together like this.
The words "how" and "like" clash because "How" already implies manner or appearance, making the addition of "like" (which serves a similar function with "what") superfluous.
Then again, my brain tries to complete the sentence as "Atomic Test-and-Set".
It's kinda hard to imagine why on earth you'd ever build a warhead larger than 100kT. At that point it's just destruction for the sake of destruction, not to win a war, but to ensure that everyone loses... Well, that is the point of MAD, but it just seems reckless and inhuman.
While the United States was unaware of the sheer number of warheads at the time (estimating far fewer or none operational), it is now confirmed that approximately 158 nuclear warheads were on the island.
The yields for these specific weapon systems were as follows:
1. Strategic Ballistic Missiles These were the weapons that triggered the crisis—long-range missiles capable of striking deep into the continental United States.
a) SS-4 Sandal (R-12) Missiles
Yield: ~1 Megaton (1,000 kT)
Status: There were roughly 36 to 40 of these missiles in Cuba. The warheads were present and could have been mated to the missiles within hours. A 1 MT explosion is roughly 60–70 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
b) SS-5 Skean (R-14) Missiles
Yield: ~1 to 2.3 Megatons (1,000–2,300 kT)
Status: The nuclear warheads for these missiles did arrive in Cuba, but the missiles themselves were blocked by the quarantine (blockade) and never reached the island.
2. Tactical (Battlefield) Nuclear Weapons This is the category that most alarmed historians and officials when it was revealed in the 1990s. The U.S. did not know these were present or operational. If the U.S. had invaded (as was being debated), local Soviet commanders had pre-delegated authority (later rescinded) to use these against American landing forces.
a) FKR-1 (Meteor) Cruise Missiles
Yield: 5 to 14 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were approximately 80 of these warheads. These were ground-launched cruise missiles intended for coastal defense and could have been used to strike the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay or incoming amphibious fleets.
b) Luna (FROG) Artillery Rockets
Yield: 2 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were 12 of these warheads. These were short-range battlefield rockets intended to destroy troop concentrations on the beachheads.
c) IL-28 "Beagle" Bombers
Yield: ~28–30 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were 6 nuclear bombs (likely the RDS-4 type) specifically for these light bombers. The aircraft were capable of striking targets in Florida or regionally.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1177/009634021246436...
[2] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10...
[3] https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/cuban-missile-crisis/m...
[4] http://www.cubanmissilecrisis.org/background/frequently-aske...
[5] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book-special-exhibit/cuba...
[6] https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-secret-soviet-tactica...
[7] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB449/
[8] johnnienaked ↗ Very interesting. During the crisis the alternative to the blockade was an airstrike. Did you ever find out how many of these warheads were operational when the decision was made to blockade? LargoLasskhyfv ↗ You know what's even more interesting? Putting all that stuff there was just a reaction by the USSR to the USA putting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter into Turkey and Italy.
Compare the distances from there to the former borders of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact on a globe and see why.
https://thecubanrevolution.com/news/why-did-us-put-jupiter-m...
Tit for tat, so to speak.
What a time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atomic_Cafe
Was this written with ai? No person in any time period wouldn't be interested. Big explosions are never boring.
By the early 1980s around 40% of the cast and crew had developed cancer, also including Susan Hayward, Agnes Moorehead, and director Dick Powell. And the movie nuclear bombed at the box office.
Now if some other country was to, well that’s end of the world.
Of course the British nuked Australia and we don’t hold that against them so maybe ….
From Restricted Data nuclear history blog: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/05/18/friday-image-the-...
And they stayed quiet it about it.
How Kodak Exposed Nuclear Testing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pSqk-XV2QM
This is, in my opinion, a stupid statement; people today, with today's sensibilities, writing about people decades, almost a century ago. The was nothing "morbid" about it. It was a new, and extremely powerful technology. Those people were not watching while licking their lips thinking about the people that can be killed with this technology. They were thinking about the "clean and limitless" energy that was supposed to have come from this new technology. Stop trying to foist your "modern" ideals on people many years ago.