Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs.
You didn't answer the question. There are other types of explosives and incendiaries. Like atomic explosives, none of them are intrinsically military. Hiroshima was especially vulnerable, being essentially a medieval shantytown of wooden huts. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458599
Hiroshima: it was not 'vaporised by 6000 °C within an instant': all the wood-frame buildings burned down in a firestorm that developed 30 minutes later
I'm not sure it's possible to determine whether something is of negative value or not. You don't have to look far to read Kranzberg's Laws of Technology, one of which says "Technology is not good, nor bad, nor neutral."
Is military strength and/or its application of negative value? If military strength is of positive value, then better weapons are of positive value. Usually, nuclear weapons are better than conventional weapons. If one fails to adequately defend himself from good weapons, it is not entirely someone else's fault.
“I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better. I fully expected that by the time I was twenty-one, some scientist, maybe my brother, would have taken a color photograph of God Almighty — and sold it to Popular Mechanics magazine. Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima.”
One bomb -- not millions of firebombs requiring thousands of planes -- does a pretty good job of destroying just about everything at ground zero, and after that as the radius increases, yes, the destruction lessens, but it's still pretty impressive.
Is this a prank, or do you really think nukes really are as benign as you seem to think? Is your next argument to be that, hey, white phosphorus isn't that bad for the skin after all?
One bomb [...] does a pretty good job of destroying just about everything at ground zero
Did you read my links? The Hiroshima bomb destroyed old buildings, not modern buildings. Nearly 800 people survived near ground zero in modern concrete buildings, despite blast overpressures of 15-20 psi. http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2008/05/philip-j-dolans-former...
in two reinforced concrete office buildings, at [distances between 0.3 and 0.4 mile from ground zero in Hiroshima], almost 90 percent of the nearly 800 occupants survived more than 20 days, although some died later of radiation injury.
[...] of nearly 5,000 students [within a mile of ground zero at Hiroshima] who were shielded in one way or another, only 26 percent were fatalities. ... survival in Hiroshima was possible in buildings at such distances that the overpressure in the open was 15 to 20 pounds per square inch.
18 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 48.7 ms ] threadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions
Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com...
Hiroshima: it was not 'vaporised by 6000 °C within an instant': all the wood-frame buildings burned down in a firestorm that developed 30 minutes later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranzberg's_laws_of_technology
I'm not denying that explosives and incendiaries cannot be used for good purposes.
Like religion, science and technology have good and bad sides. But to assume only one is not looking at the whole picture.
“I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better. I fully expected that by the time I was twenty-one, some scientist, maybe my brother, would have taken a color photograph of God Almighty — and sold it to Popular Mechanics magazine. Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima.”
—Kurt Vonnegut, Bennington College address, 1970
Not mentioning something (time is finite, emphasis is important) is not the same as claiming it never happened.
Strange interpretation.
BTW, I've read Slaughterhouse Five about a dozen times or so.
Over 70 million people, the majority of them civilians, were killed, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.
There's a reason "nuclear" is a fear-word and "fire-bombing" just isn't.
He picked it as a point of data that everyone understands, that has deep resonance, and that everyone is familiar with.
Communication generally works better that way.
What is that reason? The power of urban legend?
The suddenness and completely of nuclear annihilation is what makes people fearful
Does suddenness and completeness of nuclear annihilation exist? It seems not to exist. http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com...
One bomb -- not millions of firebombs requiring thousands of planes -- does a pretty good job of destroying just about everything at ground zero, and after that as the radius increases, yes, the destruction lessens, but it's still pretty impressive.
And that's from one bomb only:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects...
Is this a prank, or do you really think nukes really are as benign as you seem to think? Is your next argument to be that, hey, white phosphorus isn't that bad for the skin after all?
Did you read my links? The Hiroshima bomb destroyed old buildings, not modern buildings. Nearly 800 people survived near ground zero in modern concrete buildings, despite blast overpressures of 15-20 psi. http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2008/05/philip-j-dolans-former...
in two reinforced concrete office buildings, at [distances between 0.3 and 0.4 mile from ground zero in Hiroshima], almost 90 percent of the nearly 800 occupants survived more than 20 days, although some died later of radiation injury.
[...] of nearly 5,000 students [within a mile of ground zero at Hiroshima] who were shielded in one way or another, only 26 percent were fatalities. ... survival in Hiroshima was possible in buildings at such distances that the overpressure in the open was 15 to 20 pounds per square inch.
But jokes aside, this is a pretty shallow statement to make.