If you want to argue knowing the damage to be rebuilt is "utterly irrelevant" to this argument about how hard it would be to rebuilt cities, be my guest clown i guess, talk about the magic factors of how thermonuclear weapons make it so much harder to rebuild. There are no such magic unknown factors, if there were, all nuclear powers in history would be doing their best to find them and maximize their use in own weapons.
faccepalm. wow look at this clown.
you think a city getting wiped and recovering its former status is based on construction feasibility.
It isn't you dumdum, it is about people.
you need:
1. have enough survivors or replacement migrants to take their place.
2. have an economic model that brings people back.
3. have someone financing all that reconstruction.
compare a fission bomb (little boy) to a 25 MT fusion bomb hitting new york
New york's 8.26 m people ability to recover from 0.263 m dead and 0.512 m injured is significantly better than their ability to recover from 6.39897m dead and 4.0904 m injured.
little boy kills 3.18% of the pop and injures 6.2% of the pop.
that leaves over 90% of the pop undisturbed.
some will run away. most will stay put. realistically easily 6 million will remain.
New york pop is now 6 million people. they will slowly expand back into the "hole" left by the bomb.
meanwhile a 25MT fusion bomb hitting the same spot would kill 77.47% of the pop and injure an additional 48.54%. you might have noticed that is more 100%, that is because the explosion will exceed new yorks borders and expand into neighboring cities. the injured survivors are evacuated into hospitals all across the USA. most of them die to lack of medical care. the survivors are now in rehab all across america.
new york population is now exctly 0 people.
Rebuilding in the first scenario happens organically. people simply buy up the empty land.
In the second scenario you have litearlly 0 pop in place. you need to completely clear all the land, rebuild, and then entice migrants to come in to resettle.
who will pay for it all? new work is now 0 people. it has no funds at all.
is the federal govt bankrolling this?
who will want to come live there? there is a stigma! and the average person is deathly terrified of radiation (see all the people opposed to nuclear power plants)
how do you convince people it is safe to come over?
what jobs will those new migrants take? there is no city. there are no jobs there.
what about all the social services people expect? schools, healthcare, etc?
And hey look, there are all those small towns nearby you can go to instead and immediately have a full system in place already.
At this point you are creating a brand new city from scratch.
And that is not even getting into the fact that realistically in a nuclear war more than just 1 city will be bombed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were protected by the fact that only 2 bombs existed. it was not a full scale nuclear war. now there are STOCKPILES of nuclear bombs. we are talking about many cities all being wiped out at once. is the federal govt going to sink infinite funds into rebuilding all of them?
