# Would nuclear bombs be an accepted weapon if they weren't radioactive?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-nuclear-bombs-be-an-accepted-weapon-if-they-werent-radioactive/309389>\
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion\
**Created:** [June 22, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-nuclear-bombs-be-an-accepted-weapon-if-they-werent-radioactive/309389 "2005-06-22T17:02:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sewalk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@sewalk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sewalk)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-nuclear-bombs-be-an-accepted-weapon-if-they-werent-radioactive/309389/21 "2005-06-24T12:35:00Z")

</div>

> [@scr4](#):
>
> No, **msmith537** had it right. KT=kiloton=1000 ton, so 6 tons = 0.006 KT.

Exactly, and modern explosive compounds are more powerful for a given mass than TNT, hence the upper range of the yield estimate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-nuclear-bombs-be-an-accepted-weapon-if-they-werent-radioactive/309389/22 "2005-06-24T18:45:57Z")

</div>

Didn’t the Americans deny that people were dying from radiation following Hiroshima & Nagasaki? The called it Japanese propaganda.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-nuclear-bombs-be-an-accepted-weapon-if-they-werent-radioactive/309389/23 "2005-06-24T18:54:25Z")

</div>

I’d say yes, because of the changing Zeitgeist. In WWII we devastated cities with firebombs and caused as much or more loss of life than the A-bomb. Nowadays, things are different and that level of widespread destruction wouldn’t be popular at all.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-nuclear-bombs-be-an-accepted-weapon-if-they-werent-radioactive/309389/24 "2005-06-24T21:43:10Z")

</div>

How about Gamma Ray Bombs?

[http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049)

Not much fallout, more death per gram.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-nuclear-bombs-be-an-accepted-weapon-if-they-werent-radioactive/309389.md?page=1)