North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
Almost quarter of a million killed in the Japanese bombings alone is hardly a few thousand.....

That's the high estimate, 200k is a more probable number.

But kwerk's post isn't stupid because of the numbers, it's stupid because of the difference in technology and proliferation. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were comparable to explosions of about 15 to 20 kilotons of TNT, the thermonuclear weapons of today are much more powerful. An average U.S. weapon would explode with a yield of 300 kilotons of TNT (and they now have thousands of them).
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
That's the high estimate, 200k is a more probable number.

But kwerk's post isn't stupid because of the numbers, it's stupid because of the difference in technology and proliferation. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were comparable to explosions of about 15 to 20 kilotons of TNT, the thermonuclear weapons of today are much more powerful. An average U.S. weapon would explode with a yield of 300 kilotons of TNT (and they now have thousands of them).

US State Dept for Energy put the estimated figure for casualties attributed to the Hiroshima Bombing alone as being near to or exceeding 200k by 1950 alone...saying 'almost quarter of a million' is not so high, it is being conservative when considering both bombings and the resulting short and long term casualties attributed to them.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101112134708/http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
8 Dec 2009
Posts
1,005
Love how this thread swings from thermonuclear war to Liverpool v Man Utd with a kwerk troll post thrown in, that somehow still managed to hook a few.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Apr 2009
Posts
12,702
Don't forget power projection, strategic influence, forward deployed presence, doesn't need flight or operational permission from a third party, independant authority and operating capability, diplomatic authority (its the big stick bit), and generally if you are a relatively small nation with very little naval or air superiority then a Carrier Battlegroup is pretty darned intimidating.

Yer well I figured I a longer explanation would be wasted considering the comments before. We missed the biggest of course though. They USN and USMC would politically have to be involved both from top down and at their request to justify expenditure and status. Don't know how high you went up the chain but this never ceased to amaze me.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
A 1/3 sucess rate? There is also a huge difference between being able to put one third of your satellites into orbit and being able to strike a target 4000 miles away.

The DPRK is having better success with their rocket program than the US did when they first started out! Though the DPRK is an easy target for ridicule it would be most unwise to underestimate them!
 
Back
Top Bottom