darkdriver said:I don't get how you're explaining Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, since those didn't turn into nuclear deserts, and the Japanese people didn't spend decades just waiting around to rebuild.
After the bomb, the population of Hiroshima dropped from over 400,000 to under 140,000, but by the early '50s, the city was already back up to over 400,000 people.
My point is that Japan is extremely land-constrained and densely populated. Hiroshima and Nagasaki underwent decontamination processes to clear out radioactive material, and the half-life of most radioactive particles involved was relatively short. Furthermore, because those were airbursts designed for maximum destruction, much of the fallout was dispersed high into the atmosphere. Within a few weeks, radiation levels dropped significantly, aided by a typhoon that effectively washed the ground. In Japan, space is at a premium; every square inch is utilized, so repopulating a devastated city wasn't an impossible feat. It's also worth noting that the USA played a significant role in Japan's recovery during an era of peace and economic rebuilding—setting aside Cold War tensions and proxy conflicts. In the West, we don't encounter these scenarios often, and it is typically easier (and cheaper) to simply abandon a city depending on the scale of the damage. You have all the space you need.
However, one or two bombs aren't the real issue here; the political fallout of such an act far outweighs the physical destruction and contamination. The real nightmare is a global nuclear war, where massive amounts of radioactive material are released into the atmosphere and major infrastructure in various nations is leveled, making a quick recovery impossible. Ultimately, one of the doctrines for the later stages of a general nuclear conflict involves specifically targeting civilian centers and infrastructure to cripple an opponent's ability to recover—be it militarily, economically, or demographically.
The sequence of events generally unfolds like this: one side attacks, the other responds with equal force, then comes a phase where both sides strike every military target they can find. Finally, in the last stage, they intentionally target civilians and cities to ensure long-term incapacitation of the enemy—essentially knocking them "out of the game" for the long haul. In Western military and intelligence circles, this is known as a "countervalue plan."
Regardless, this is incredibly grim subject matter. It feels morbid to discuss it so casually, like some idle chatter over drinks at a bar. It is easy to toss numbers around from the comfort of an armchair, but experiencing something like that is a different reality entirely.
