Nuclear Warfare
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2025 5:56 am
Is there such a thing as a just war? Can a nuclear weapon/nuclear sabotage be part of those justifications?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were and still are, the only instances of nuclear weapons being used in warfare. One can argue that this ended World War II but was it really necessary?
In terms of long lasting health damage, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had vast acute deaths from the explosion itself but most of the radiation dissipated as the entirety of the payload was released immediately. Compared with the nuclear accident (disaster) at Chernobyl in 1986, both A-Bombs were minor with radiation effects in the long term.
With this in mind, nuclear warfare now has data. Sabotage of nuclear facilities would be a much more effective long term weapon it seems but nukes continue to be on the world stage once more as a deterrent.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were and still are, the only instances of nuclear weapons being used in warfare. One can argue that this ended World War II but was it really necessary?
In terms of long lasting health damage, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had vast acute deaths from the explosion itself but most of the radiation dissipated as the entirety of the payload was released immediately. Compared with the nuclear accident (disaster) at Chernobyl in 1986, both A-Bombs were minor with radiation effects in the long term.
With this in mind, nuclear warfare now has data. Sabotage of nuclear facilities would be a much more effective long term weapon it seems but nukes continue to be on the world stage once more as a deterrent.