The fact that EU nations are now sending military equipment to Ukraine risks escalating the chance for Russia to use nukes to end the war.
If Russia gets stalled they will have no option.
That's fucking dumb. Modern nukes are usually 20 to 50 times the yield of the first nuclear weapons you're describing and there are thousands fired in volleys as to not be intercepted, they can easily raze a city to the ground. And that's just the run of the mill variety, thet ones going for enemy capital cities would have a yield 2000 to 3000 times greater than those dropped on Japan
Yeah still retarded, for starters the shockwave doesn't dissipate in inverse square law fashion, it rides the ground and goes farther depending on the terrain. Second you argue that the same damage could be done with napalm, well it could be done with axes, it's just not as fucking easy. Third, the link to the paper you provided is broken but I'm sure it didn't say dozens of missiles with dozens of warheads each, each nuke dozens of times more powerful than fat man in single city would do a damage comparable to what happened in Nagasaki
If Russia drops a nuke, it doesn't matter where they do it, America's dropping a nuke on Russia.
China and Russia will both drop nukes on America.
France or the UK might drop a nuke but they'll most likely pussy out.
Israel drops a nuke on Iran "preemptively" or some shit.
It ends with about 2.9 million fatalities within 24 hours
>for starters the shockwave doesn't dissipate in inverse square law fashion, it rides the ground and goes farther depending on the terrain.
Inverse square law * some local geometrical correction is still inverse square law in first order.
>Second you argue that the same damage could be done with napalm, well it could be done with axes, it's just not as fucking easy.
See: my argument about Gutian invasion in the same comment.
>Third, the link to the paper you provided is broken
This one? https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay5478
It's not because it's a flattened sphere, the energy directed to the ground gets reflected upwards mostly, 1 and 9 are in the same order, it's still a lot of difference in the short distances that make a city.
Repeat your argument, because it seems to me you're saying ecosystems are so fragile even cavemen could break it in a global scale. Which they are, but that doesn't help your point
Not that one, the one you oosted, but simple math, that's talking about 350 nukes on the lower yield side, with an average death estimate of 75 million. That's the entire population of the first 15 or 17 biggest Indian cities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_India_by_population
Not such a great evidence for your argument
>It's not because it's a flattened sphere, the energy directed to the ground gets reflected upwards mostly
It's half a sphere. Just multiply everything by 2.
But you fail to understand what the importance of square law is here. It means that if you scale ALL distances up 2 times, you will need 4 times higher yield to accomplish the same result.
>Not that one, the one you oosted, but simple math, that's talking about 350 nukes on the lower yield side, with an average death estimate of 75 million. That's the entire population of the first 15 or 17 biggest Indian cities.
This one?
http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/history/archives/collections/organized-collections/atomic-bomb-casualty-commission-series/abccrpt_pt3app9ch3.pdf
Let me stress once more:
>Outside a radius 1km from the ground center, there are almost no damage in a concrete building.
With 100x yield, the same observation will be true for everything 10km from ground zero.
It's not difficult to understand, it's incorrect. I said so, the cities are not very big, Few in the world are more than 15 km across.
By your own (extremely oversimplified and incorrect) rule a modern nuke with a pretty common yield (though not the most common) would raze most European cities, since they are less than 10km in radius. And said nuke it's usually fired in volleys of missiles with several nukes per missile.
I asked you explain your argument, posting links isn't an argument.
Did you even read the report from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or do you want to keep believing this bullshit?
On pages 5 and 6/8 you have reports about people who were inside buildings (but not shielded from radiation). At 0.4km, half were killed. At 0.8km, 30%. At 1km, 10%. At 2km, barely anyone (and only breaking glass was a real hazard).
Scale that up by 10x again if you want to see what happens if you drop a 2MT nuke on a city.
