Hacker News Reader

> Quite a few more died in the end than a nuke could manage.

Are you including the ensuing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Even then, I think you're seriously underestimating the number of casualties a relatively low yield nuke (in the context of modern strategic weapons) would produce if it hit a city like New York.

View on HN

Yes that was the implication. Depends who you ask and talking about it at the time was full of controversy, but I have seen half a million excess deaths in the end for Iraq and maybe half that for Afghanistan?

I think you mightbe underestimating either the population density of a major city or the kill everything radius of a thermonuclear weapon.

And the aftermath of a nuclear war. If they're going to count the people who died after the war proper, they should count them in both scenarios.

Would a nuke not have also led to wars like that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com