Nagasaki 45 days after, Hiroshima 60 days after but they weren't sitting a couple of hundred land miles away.
Japan didn't surrender until over a week after Nagasaki, and I don't think the occupation began until a while after that, so I don't imagine there was any foreign humanitarian aid immediately afterwards, no.Did anyone go into Japan: Hiroshima & Nagasaki with humanitarian aid? Serious question..
Publications
www.reachingcriticalwill.org
The pdf in the webpage above is worth reading.
The stress is completely on prevention...because nuclear war is unthinkable in its destructive impact on everything in its wake
TBF, Ukraine seems to be a good deal more equal opportunities when it comes to women in the armed forces, so I imagine the gulf won't be nearly as wide as it is in Russia. I realise that women in Ukraine aren't subject to the same restrictions on leaving as men are, but it seems to be a step in the right direction.
You wouldn't want to lick the ground and you'd need to stay away from any fall out or rain but you'd be fine to walk down the street within a day or two of a nuclear blast.
Undoubtedly. But not because they were worried about the safety of their own troops.
That's because a reactor was on fire in the open air for over a week spreading contaminants everywhere. An air burst is nothing like that.
I've seen you bouncing Czechs which I suppose is similar
For me this entire line of posting seems really weird. Really weird. As has been pointed out the war continued for a week after nagasaki. And what do you think the Japanese attitude to air-dropped aid would be? Honest to god, what would you think if a nasty bomb levelled your city then a day or two later the same people said 'here's some aid'. Reckon you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. But hiroshima and nagasaki weren't the greatest death tolls of the war, more people died in the fire-bombing of Tokyo. See Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) - Wikipedia. To me it's really strange to see you suggest aid should have been given to people at hiroshima and nagasaki but to ignore hamburg and dresden and Tokyo and so on.
It's the likeliest prospect - just as with conventional explosives, an airburst reduces the protection of trenches/foxholes, as the blast is coming down, rather than across the ground and being shadowed by such structures.
Because ground bursts destroy less and depending on wind direction could dump lots of fallout on Russia. And because nuclear bombs are generally not designed for ground bursts.
When I said line I thought that made it clear I was referring to more than one post
The post strike radiation environment varies greatly with the fuzing profile, physics package design, yield selection and weather. I wouldn't want to loiter near a target ground-zero minus adequate PPE in the ensuing days after an airburst with a non-clean burnup.
If anything, it's Jona Lewis other hit that would be more suitable for this thread
Yeh. They also killed a load of Americans, which people never seem to mention. I don't understand why you're so fixated on this aid bit for hiroshima and nagasaki but not for Tokyo, which after all (operation meetinghouse) left a million homeless and many, many thousands injured. Or about aid at all, when belligerent powers a) don't offer aid to their enemies, and b) have no real channels to do so.
