Nuclear-explosive fearmongering, revisited (was Awe comparing app

Have I got this right? In order to "promote" the nuclear power industry, you're arguing that having a nuclear bomb explode nearby isn't really so bad? And that Hiroshima (I always thought the H was capitalized) taught us that nuclear explosions inflicted previously unimagined horrors, especially related to the effects of radiation on civilian populations. I guess that was just anti-nuclear hysteria.

> Please do note that nuclear plants are the next best
> (in my opinion) to massive space based solar power.
> On the other hand, read the end notes here:
> http://www.kuro5hin .org/story/ 2007/10/30/ 18253/301

Why? It contains implications that nuclear explosives are unusual in their destructive potential. This has long been known to be false, of course. Have you read Garwin?:
http://www.fas. org/rlg/20. htm

He notes that both chemical and biological terror weapons are more cost-effective and easier-to-obtain than nuclear.

The destructive effects of nuclear explosives have been exaggerated, both by their owners and by other conflicted parties. Please study every currently-archived post at the following blog before further commenting on, or making implications about, dangers or effects of nuclear explosives:
http://www.google. com/search? q=site:glasstone .blogspot. com

Adding hiroshima to that search returns insightful posts about the differences between bombing (a) a medieval tinderbox shanty town, and (b) a real city complete with real (e.g. concrete and steel) buildings.

A large cargo ship loaded with fertilizer is a half-megaton- yield bomb. Both the ship and the fertilizer are cheap and easy to obtain, and easy to place at desirable targets. A fertilizer ship seems to be neither sexy- nor ignorant- enough for a Clancy novel, though.

|