[Dr Van Nostrand]

I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"

And I like how you ask for evidence that you know full well is impossible to provide and then get all smug when people do try to provide what evidence is possible to provide.

The second half of this tactic is the famous "I'm not doing your homework for you." It allows freaks to make outlandish claims and live them with no accounting for reality. I've known people who spent months working on a submarines with enough nuclear firepower to destroy a hemisphere and poison the entire planet with radiation. Those people who live and work on those submarines as well as those who developed the weapons are laughing at some idiotic beanbag on the internet who says it's all fake.
It's the same way people in Australia laugh at the flat earthers. The FE crowd can go on and on about about how stupid the mainstream sheeples are but they are still the ones that can't explain the basic geography of the planet.

It would all be sad except it's so much fun laughing at these people, it does have some redeeming social value.

[Rushy]

I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"

And I like how you ask for evidence that you know full well is impossible to provide and then get all smug when people do try to provide what evidence is possible to provide.

Yeah, it's almost like I'm asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist!

You want to see the "internals of the device". What would that tell you? I wouldn't know what the internals of a nuclear weapon should look like. They could show me anything, how would you or I know that's real?
And then you want to see it detonated. OK. You understand that these blasts are very powerful so that would need to be from some distance away. The person showing the "internals of the device" and the camera would need to get that distance away and from that distance how could you know it's really the device you just saw the internals of that exploded?

I don't think it's "weirdly specific" to require that the inside of the nuclear weapon clearly contains mechanisms that it is proposed to actually have.

This continues to be incorrect no matter how many times you say it. You have been shown a lot of evidence in this thread. You can reject it all of course and call it inadequate, as is your right, but to say we don't have "any evidence" is simply incorrect.

All you've shown is things you believe to be evidence. It's like when a religious fanatic shows me the weight of a corpse changing on death and tells me that's evidence of the soul. To you, it might look normal because you've surrounded yourself with your fellow acolytes. To me, it just makes you look insane.

I actually disagree that religious beliefs are not based at all on evidence. I mean, let's say there was no historic evidence that Jesus even existed. Let's say the Gospels talk about people and places which just never existed. Let's say that there were no known versions of the Gospels before 1900. Then I'd be taking a pretty big leap of faith believing any of the New Testamant stories. But none of that is true. There is extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus existing, the people mentioned are known to have existed and many of the places mentioned still exist. There are copies of fragments of Gospels going back to reasonably close to Jesus' time. So while sure, I've had to take somewhat of a leap of faith it's not a completely blind leap with no evidence to back it up. Many of our beliefs are evidence based, you can't verify everything first hand.

There isn't any historical evidence that Jesus existed... Did you think there was? Did you honestly believe the bible is "historical evidence"? Let's not get sidetracked here. I don't want to delve in multiple of your erroneous beliefs at once. Let's stick to the idea that you think a glowing rock can blow up a city.

I'd suggest it's a lack of rationality to disbelieve all the people who have witnessed at first hand nuclear explosions, dismiss the explosions as caused by conventional explosions - something you have provided no evidence for - and to ignore the radiation signatures of the bombs. As I've said multiple times, your entire argument is one of incredulity.

Just like how people have witnessed first hand aliens, right? What about bigfoot? Are those eye witnesses very reliable as well or would you claim they just weren't sure what they were looking at?

[AATW]

I don't think it's "weirdly specific" to require that the inside of the nuclear weapon clearly contains mechanisms that it is proposed to actually have.

And how would you determine that? How do you know what the inside of a nuclear weapon would look like? Your only source of information for that would be what "they" tell you, and you clearly don't trust "them"?

All you've shown is things you believe to be evidence.

No. I've shown you evidence. I believe the evidence, but that's a separate thing
Witness testimony from survivors of Hiroshima is evidence.
Film of nuclear explosions is evidence.
Papers about the radioactive after effects of nuclear tests is evidence.
All those things ARE evidence. They'd all be accepted in a court of law as such. How credible you find them is an exercise for the reader.

I'd note you have provided no evidence for your assertion that Hiroshima was "firebombing".

It's like when a religious fanatic shows me the weight of a corpse changing on death and tells me that's evidence of the soul. To you, it might look normal because you've surrounded yourself with your fellow acolytes. To me, it just makes you look insane.

No, you're right. That is insane. For a start, why would a soul have mass? Secondly, far as I can tell that was a one off experiment or series of experiments the results of which are disputed and have not been repeated.

There isn't any historical evidence that Jesus existed...

Incorrect.

Let's stick to the idea that you think a glowing rock can blow up a city.

OK. Well, the physics around this is well understood. No-one is saying that glowing rocks can make you teleport. But yes, they do contain a large amount of energy
Because E=mc²
'c' is a very big number. So the m doesn't have to be that big to generate a huge amount of energy.
Do you also think nuclear power stations are fake? It's a similar physics with those.

Just like how people have witnessed first hand aliens, right? What about bigfoot? Are those eye witnesses very reliable as well or would you claim they just weren't sure what they were looking at?

As I noted in the aliens thread, it's interesting how now we all walk around with HD cameras in our pockets there hasn't been an explosion of clear pictures of UFOs and bigfoot.
So sure, witness testimony alone may be suspect but it depends what the person is claiming to have witnessed. Certain claims are more credible than others. That's subjective, obviously. But when you combine the witness testimony with the fact that the Hiroshima bomb is on film as are many of the other nuclear tests. Then you have numerous sources outlining the radioactive effects of nuclear bombs and tests. For example
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-atomic-bomb-survivors-have-transformed-our-understanding-radiation-s-impacts
And the fact it's based on well understood and accepted physics. Like most things we can't directly witness we base our opinions on balance of probabilities.

You have provided no evidence for your alternative explanation and your entire argument is one from incredulity.

[BillO]

I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected.

Good, I'm glad I could provide something you like.  Makes me feel warm and cuddly.

Your ask is asinine and you know it.  Nuclear weapons, even the tiniest ones, are not cheap.  They are many millions of dollars.  No one is just going to go ahead and build one in your presence and then take you out to show you it blowing up.  They are not going to do it on camera without cut shots either because the cost will be roughly the same and the effort will be higher.

It's pretty easy, and disingenuous, to ask for proof that is a practical impossibility.

The reason why you and others like you get so defensive on this subject is because you must somehow believe that "x is real" without having any evidence for it whatsoever.

Hilarious!  Yeah, like you must believe nuclear weapons are fake without having any evidence for it whatsoever?  Okay, I can see how you'd be an expert in doing that.

See, here's the issue and why I assume you'd reject any attempt at proof.  There is already ton's of evidence.  You just don't trust it.  What would ever make any of us think you would trust any further evidence?

Anyway, this thread is going off the rails.  From my perspective I'll give you the last word.

[markjo]

Yeah, it's almost like I'm asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist!

Personally, I think that it’s far more likely that you know full well that nuclear bombs do exist and you’re just trolling.

[Rushy]

And how would you determine that? How do you know what the inside of a nuclear weapon would look like? Your only source of information for that would be what "they" tell you, and you clearly don't trust "them"?

I don't know what the inside of a nuclear weapon looks like, and neither do you, funny enough! They never actually show what's in there, just funny pictures of plain metal containers with "aliens inside" written on it. Sorry, I mean "nuclear materials inside" with the scary radioactive symbol.

All those things ARE evidence. They'd all be accepted in a court of law as such. How credible you find them is an exercise for the reader.

Gee, I forgot about the physics courts. Remember when they upheld the law of gravity? I still think it's unconstitutional myself, but I guess that's up to the reader!

I'd note you have provided no evidence for your assertion that Hiroshima was "firebombing".

It's hilarious that a small wooden village was "nuked" and the only masonry building in such village survived the "blast" easily while all the wooden ones burned down. Really makes you think.

Do you also think nuclear power stations are fake? It's a similar physics with those.

Why does everyone say this? It's obvious how little physics you understand (bringing up e=mc^2). You should know you can't convert mass to energy in that way.

Further, do you think boiling water is the same thing as blowing up entire villages? Should I put a "weapon of mass destruction" label on my stove? It boils a lot of water!

And Chernobyl! Did it explode? It didn't? It's still there? Woah. It's almost like how nuclear energy works and how your made-up bomb meme works are two totally different things.

As I noted in the aliens thread, it's interesting how now we all walk around with HD cameras in our pockets there hasn't been an explosion of clear pictures of UFOs and bigfoot.

There's no explosion of clear pictures of nuclear bombs, either. Really makes one think. In fact, no one ever explodes nuclear bombs (North Korea supposedly does it underground where you can't see it, what a hilarious coincidence!)

So sure, witness testimony alone may be suspect but it depends what the person is claiming to have witnessed. Certain claims are more credible than others. That's subjective, obviously. But when you combine the witness testimony with the fact that the Hiroshima bomb is on film as are many of the other nuclear tests. Then you have numerous sources outlining the radioactive effects of nuclear bombs and tests. For example
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-atomic-bomb-survivors-have-transformed-our-understanding-radiation-s-impacts
And the fact it's based on well understood and accepted physics. Like most things we can't directly witness we base our opinions on balance of probabilities.

It's based on unproven nonsense, it's "well accepted" because it is irrelevant to physics on whether or not a big bomb exists. It's a geopolitical tool, not a physics problem. There are no peer reviewed papers on building nuclear bombs.

You have provided no evidence for your alternative explanation and your entire argument is one from incredulity.

I don't have to provide evidence of something not existing, how many times must I state that?

Yeah, it's almost like I'm asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist!

Personally, I think that it’s far more likely that you know full well that nuclear bombs do exist and you’re just trolling.

You have been warned repeatedly that accusing people of trolling is not a form of content. Either say something meaningful or do not say anything at all. The next time I see you accuse someone of trolling in any thread in any upper forum it's a 3-day ban.

Hilarious!  Yeah, like you must believe nuclear weapons are fake without having any evidence for it whatsoever?  Okay, I can see how you'd be an expert in doing that.

See, here's the issue and why I assume you'd reject any attempt at proof.  There is already ton's of evidence.  You just don't trust it.  What would ever make any of us think you would trust any further evidence?

Anyway, this thread is going off the rails.  From my perspective I'll give you the last word.

The important takeaway is that you found a way to think you're right without supporting your position. Go ahead, run away from the thread. No one will miss you. "wah wah wah you don't like my extra good evidence of explodey pictures!"

[AATW]

I don't know what the inside of a nuclear weapon looks like, and neither do you, funny enough!

That's pretty much my point. So why then would that be part of the evidence you would accept. "They" could show you anything, you wouldn't know what you're looking at.
And then they'd either have to cut to another camera to show the explosion, or there would have to be a long shot of them retreating to a safe distance. Either way it would be easy for you to claim it's not the device you were shown the inside of that exploded. It's just a bizarre criteria you set for the evidence you'd accept. It makes zero sense.
You dismiss the mountain of evidence already available to you and then set a level of evidence you would accept which would be far less compelling than what already exists.

It's hilarious that a small wooden village was "nuked" and the only masonry building in such village survived the "blast" easily while all the wooden ones burned down. Really makes you think.

It makes me think that masonry is stronger than wood. The three little pigs know that, dude. As for survived the blast easily, have a look at the pictures. Some of the buildings are standing, but they're hardly pristine.
EDIT: I don't think "small wooden villages typically have populations of a quarter of a million people, at least 90,000 of whom died in the explosion. That's quite the fire bombing...

Why does everyone say this? It's obvious how little physics you understand (bringing up e=mc^2).

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/the-manhattan-project

Although he never worked directly on the atomic bomb, Einstein is often incorrectly associated with the advent of nuclear weapons. His famous equation E=mc2 explains the energy released in an atomic bomb

And Chernobyl! Did it explode? It didn't? It's still there? Woah. It's almost like how nuclear energy works and how your made-up bomb meme works are two totally different things.

They're not totally different, neither are they identical. Those aren't the only two options.

I don't have to provide evidence of something not existing, how many times must I state that?

That isn't what I suggested you provide evidence for.
We agree that Hiroshima happened, right? You've said it was "fire-bombing", but have provided no evidence of that. The best you've come up with is that less strong structures were more easily flattened than stronger ones. But your thesis doesn't work.  For that level of destruction to have been conventional explosives there would have had to be thousands of tons of them. How was that dropped on them? It was a single plane which delivered the bomb.
There is witness testimony of it being a single explosion and there was a radiation signature from the bomb. Evidence of all that has been provided.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

It is a feature of the willfully ignorant that they will reject any evidence that goes against their beliefs. There are people that work on nuclear weapons, there are astronauts that have orbited the earth but the willful ingnoids whose delusions are threatened these people simply brand them as liars.

Truthfully, I wouldn't care if these idiots didn't believe the earth is round or if nukes exist. The smugness wrapping their absolute stupidity is very entertaining. They'll never know how idiotic they are to those of us who who have to deal with reality. The danger they pose is when their soft mushy minds are used by people like Trump or Putin. Let's face it, if you can't even understand the basic geography of this planet, you're going to be fodder for cult leaders, despots, late night infomercials and internet banner ads. Have your credit card standing by!

I do wonder, metaphysically, if in our death, we do see some level of truth in the beyond. I imagine the soul of a flat earther leaving their body and being exposed to the nature of truth around them. As their disembodied soul soars over the stars and planets, will they still curse and insist it's all a liberal hoax?

If Rushy was blown up by a nuclear weapon, would there be a moment of enlightenment where all dimensions of the past and future are visible. Would he see the bomb being built and deployed? Would the story of what really killed him enter his awareness?

lol, Imagine the afterlife, Jesus trying to explain to Rushy that he was blown up by a nuclear weapon.
"Prove it, you long-haired, liberal, hippie freak!"

[BillO]

Why does everyone say this? It's obvious how little physics you understand (bringing up e=mc^2). You should know you can't convert mass to energy in that way.

This here is 100% pure bunk.  Do you realize this proves, beyond any shadow of the tiniest doubt, that you do not understand the slightest thing about where nuclear energy comes from.  Yet you still feel qualified to discuss it and taunt me for wanting out of this discussion?  It is now obvious why you don't accept any of the evidence presented - because you are not able in any way to see that it is evidence.  So, again, no point it having a discussion with you on it.  You have just put in writing you don't understand any of it.

I don't have to provide evidence of something not existing, how many times must I state that?

Nobody is asking for that.  You have made some monumentally ridiculous claims here.  We are asking for evidence for those claims.  You have provided exactly none.  Which leads us (me, anyway) to think you have none and you were really just speaking out of your extreme lower digestive system anatomy.

Update here:  Let's add to this the fact that you are asserting that something that is already accepted as an established fact does not exist.  In this case, yes, the onus is squarely on you to provide evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the established fact is wrong.  Into other words that nuclear weapons don't exist.  The best way to do that is to use your superior knowledge to show they can't exist.  Another way would be to provide irrefutable evidence (in the true meaning of "evidence") that all the things that happened that are currently explained by the use of nuclear weapons are better explained by some other means (that's the thing you have not done).

The important takeaway is that you found a way to think you're right without supporting your position. Go ahead, run away from the thread. No one will miss you. "wah wah wah you don't like my extra good evidence of explodey pictures!"

There is no longer any point in arguing about nuclear weapons.  The only evidence you say you will accept is not something anyone here can provide.   

On the other hand, if you like I can stick around to be a thorn in your side and we can discuss what actually constitutes what people call "evidence" and how it needs to be treated to be if use.  However, that subject is not likely to go anywhere as has been demonstrated by you gleefully rejecting evidence presented here without even taking the time to learn the significance of it to the subject at hand with a sound "Nuh uuhh"!  Besides, such a discussion would be off topic for the thread.

So I'll let you get back to your ad hominem rhetoric.

[BillO]

lol, Imagine the afterlife, Jesus trying to explain to Rushy that he was blown up by a nuclear weapon.
"Prove it, you long-haired, liberal, hippie freak!"

Rushy's ad hominem is a bit more subtle but I do get your meaning here.

[Rushy]

That's pretty much my point. So why then would that be part of the evidence you would accept. "They" could show you anything, you wouldn't know what you're looking at.
And then they'd either have to cut to another camera to show the explosion, or there would have to be a long shot of them retreating to a safe distance. Either way it would be easy for you to claim it's not the device you were shown the inside of that exploded. It's just a bizarre criteria you set for the evidence you'd accept. It makes zero sense.
You dismiss the mountain of evidence already available to you and then set a level of evidence you would accept which would be far less compelling than what already exists.

It's not a "mountain of evidence" and I think this thread makes that pretty clear.

It makes me think that masonry is stronger than wood. The three little pigs know that, dude. As for survived the blast easily, have a look at the pictures. Some of the buildings are standing, but they're hardly pristine.
EDIT: I don't think "small wooden villages typically have populations of a quarter of a million people, at least 90,000 of whom died in the explosion. That's quite the fire bombing...

My point is that it's not a coincidence that two remote villages with no military value were targeted for this demonstration of a super-mega-ultra-bomb. They were firebombed in such a way that is was known they would be basically flattened, but the masonry building survived because it doesn't burn. Otherwise, you must be saying that all we need to do to survive a nuclear bomb is to be in a masonry building. Well, no wonder no one uses them, most modern cities are made of concrete! The bomb is useless after all!

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/the-manhattan-project

More propaganda.

That isn't what I suggested you provide evidence for.
We agree that Hiroshima happened, right? You've said it was "fire-bombing", but have provided no evidence of that. The best you've come up with is that less strong structures were more easily flattened than stronger ones. But your thesis doesn't work.  For that level of destruction to have been conventional explosives there would have had to be thousands of tons of them. How was that dropped on them? It was a single plane which delivered the bomb.
There is witness testimony of it being a single explosion and there was a radiation signature from the bomb. Evidence of all that has been provided.

Remember when you claimed that nuclear bombs have radiation that lasts practically forever but somehow Hiroshima cleaned it all up in just a few months then rebuilt? Comedy at its finest.

It is a feature of the willfully ignorant that they will reject any evidence that goes against their beliefs.

That's what all of you have been doing in this entire thread. You are so inundated with propaganda, so blasted with fictional stories of nonsense, that you'd prefer to believe it. This is always the case with people who have been lied to. It will always be easier for you to stay with the lie than be told it was a lie, because it requires accepting that you were lied to and deceived. To be deceived is to be weak and no one wants accept weakness. Therefore, you'd prefer the fairy tale over reality. This is the same thing that keeps people religious long into their adult years.

This here is 100% pure bunk.  Do you realize this proves, beyond any shadow of the tiniest doubt, that you do not understand the slightest thing about where nuclear energy comes from.  Yet you still feel qualified to discuss it and taunt me for wanting out of this discussion?  It is now obvious why you don't accept any of the evidence presented - because you are not able in any way to see that it is evidence.  So, again, no point it having a discussion with you on it.  You have just put in writing you don't understand any of it.

Ironic. Let me guess, you, too, incorrectly believe mass can be magically converted into energy? I guess in your mind, when you burn the gasoline in a car, it just goes "poof" and turns into energy.

Maybe you should look up how the bombs are claimed to actually work instead of quoting your favorite pop-sci equations. Here's a hint: even nuclear bomb liars don't claim you can extract all the mass of a nuclear bomb and turn it into energy! Wow! I hope you look it up and feel silly afterwards.

Nobody is asking for that.  You have made some monumentally ridiculous claims here.  We are asking for evidence for those claims.  You have provided exactly none.  Which leads us (me, anyway) to think you have none and you were really just speaking out of your extreme lower digestive system anatomy.

No need to be so rude, especially after you said you were going to stop responding, something I personally looked forward to. It's funny how people such as yourself jump straight to insults when I've said none in this entire thread.

Update here:  Let's add to this the fact that you are asserting that something that is already accepted as an established fact does not exist.  In this case, yes, the onus is squarely on you to provide evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the established fact is wrong.  Into other words that nuclear weapons don't exist.  The best way to do that is to use your superior knowledge to show they can't exist.  Another way would be to provide irrefutable evidence (in the true meaning of "evidence") that all the things that happened that are currently explained by the use of nuclear weapons are better explained by some other means (that's the thing you have not done).

Sorry, gee, I forgot that if a lot of people believe a lie and assert it as fact, it magically becomes true. What a strange world. I guess propaganda really is a form of sorcery!

There is no longer any point in arguing about nuclear weapons.  The only evidence you say you will accept is not something anyone here can provide.   

No one can provide it because nuclear bombs don't exist. If I asked you for a video on the US president being presented a unicorn as a birthday gift, I suppose you would have similar trouble finding it. Most notably because it didn't happen.

[BillO]

Ironic. Let me guess, you, too, incorrectly believe mass can be magically converted into energy? I guess in your mind, when you burn the gasoline in a car, it just goes "poof" and turns into energy.

That's NOT how it works.

Maybe you should look up how the bombs are claimed to actually work instead of quoting your favorite pop-sci equations.

Thanks for your concern, but there is no need for me to do that.  I already know.  Unlike you.

Here's a hint: even nuclear bomb liars don't claim you can extract all the mass of a nuclear bomb and turn it into energy! Wow! I hope you look it up and feel silly afterwards.

Your ignorance is showing again.  No one that knows what is actually taking place would ever say this.  No shame in not knowing, only in trying to pass yourself off as an expert when it's painfully obvious you are not.

No need to be so rude, especially after you said you were going to stop responding

So, still no evidence of your claims?  BTW "speaking out of your ass" is not an insult.  It's a colloquial term meaning "speaking from ignorance", which is just usually a statement of fact. 

... because nuclear bombs don't exist.

Yes, that is one of your ridiculous claims, and your evidence for it is ... ?

[Rushy]

Yes, that is one of your ridiculous claims, and your evidence for it is ... ?

Asking the same question over and over again is rather boring. If you don't intend on providing the evidence I asked for (you can't, because nuclear bombs do not exist), then why bother wasting your time in this thread? I have proven my point quite considerably. Nuclear bombs have not been made, are not currently being made, and will never be made. They do not exist. It's a scam, like religion or Australia.

[Action80]

We could personally walk them through the physics of the bomb and the mechanics of making a nuclear bomb...

So, we walk them through the physics of a nuclear bomb, walk them through the mechanics of building a nuclear bomb...

"We," will eagerly await the "we," walk through...

I mean, holy crap...here is something on this forum claiming to have all the physics of a non-existent device worked out...

HILARITY!!!

[AATW]

My point is that it's not a coincidence that two remote villages with no military value were targeted for this demonstration of a super-mega-ultra-bomb.

This is incorrect in multiple ways. They weren't "remote villages". Hiroshima was in the top 10 largest cities in Japan at the time and:

Hiroshima was also very important from a military perspective since it was home to the 2nd Army Headquarters, which were responsible for the defense of southern Japan. It was an important center of storage, communications, and assembly of soldiers. The city’s landscape added to its appeal as a place to showcase the bombs destructive power – the nearby hills could increase damage from the atomic blast and the rivers running through it kept Hiroshima off the list of targets for firebombing

(My emphasis. Source: https://www.globalzero.org/updates/the-atomic-bombings-why-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/ )
Another similar source: https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/atomic-bombing/hiroshima/page-4.html

They were firebombed in such a way that is was known they would be basically flattened, but the masonry building survived because it doesn't burn. Otherwise, you must be saying that all we need to do to survive a nuclear bomb is to be in a masonry building.

Again, I'd urge you to look some of the "after" photos. Some of the masonry buildings remain standing but you're acting like they were pristine and only the wooden ones burned. That's simply not true. In fact in this image you can see some of the masonry ones are seriously damaged. That building at the bottom looks like wood actually and is standing, maybe it was protected in some way by another structure.

https://i0.wp.com/prologue.blogs.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2020/07/342-C-K6011.jpg

About 2 minutes 30 in here you can see some masonry buildings very seriously damaged



Your claim of firebombing makes no sense. How would you deploy enough firebombs to wreak that much damage in one go? The witness testimony clearly describes a single explosion. Example:

August 6 was “an unimaginably beautiful day” punctuated by a “blinding light that flashed as if a thousand magnesium bulbs had been turned on all at once,” Hiroshima survivor Kikue Shiota later recalled. The blast trapped 21-year-old Shiota and her 16-year-old sister beneath the remains of their razed house, more than a mile from the bomb’s hypocenter.

Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nine-harrowing-eyewitness-accounts-bombings-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-180975480/

That's firebombing, is it?

Remember when you claimed that nuclear bombs have radiation that lasts practically forever but somehow Hiroshima cleaned it all up in just a few months then rebuilt?

No, I don't remember any of that because that's not what I said. What I said was that there is a radiation signature of nuclear bombs which proves it wasn't a conventional weapon. This has had effects which can be studied:

Leukemia is a very rare disease, but clinicians became aware that it was appearing a lot among the survivors," says Kotaro Ozasa, an RERF epidemiologist. ABCC showed the disease was especially prevalent among those closest to the hypocenter. Previous studies among people exposed to radiation in a medical context had hinted at the link, Wakeford says, but "the findings from Japan provided convincing evidence."

Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-atomic-bomb-survivors-have-transformed-our-understanding-radiation-s-impacts

And you surely understand about the half-life of a radiation source?

The initial radiation emitted at the moment of detonation inflicted great damage to human bodies. Most of those exposed to direct radiation within a one-kilometer radius died. Residual radiation was emitted later. Roughly 80% of all residual radiation was emitted within 24 hours. Research has indicated that 24 hours after the bombing the quantity of residual radiation a person would receive at the hypocenter would be 1/1000th of the quantity received immediately following the explosion. A week later, it would be 1/1,000,000th. Thus, residual radiation declined rapidly.

https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/english/9809.html

More details here about why you can live in Hiroshima but not Chernobyl

https://higgsino.medium.com/why-can-you-live-in-hiroshima-but-not-chernobyl-ab7dac7a34d3

Again, the physics is similar but not identical.

[DuncanDoenitz]

And, actually, people do live in Chornobyl. 

The Soviet authorities established 2 zones centred on the reactor; at 10 km radius, and at 30 km radius. 

Prior to the Russian invasion, these zones and checkpoints continued to be maintained, administered and monitored by Ukraine.  The 10 km zone has the most severe contamination and was declared uninhabitable, due to the backround radiation and the multitude of hotspots.  The 10 km zone includes the now abandoned city of Pripyat, 3 km from the reactor, which is where the famous derelict apartments, hotels and funfair are located.  Prior to Feb 2022 it could be visited by tourists (like me, 2021).  Day-trippers are obliged to wear a dosimeter which is monitored at the end of your visit; tour guides, workers and security personnel are more rigidly monitored, and all vehicles are decontaminated on departure.

The town of Chornobyl is actually about 15 km from the reactor, hence inside the 30-zone, but outside the 10-zone.  It continues to house security and maintenance personnel.  Although it is permanently occupied, personnel work on a shift-basis of a few weeks on site, alternating with a similar period elsewhere.  The workers are there to maintain the infrastructure, but mainly to continue processing fuel rods from the other, decomisssioned, reactors. 

Since the Incident, the residual ground based radiation gradually percolated down into the soil, so presented a reducing hazard when walking or driving on concrete. 

Then, of course, Russia drove its tank batallions across the terrain, and put everything back to 1986. 

[Rushy]

Right.  Since you have not even provided one Word of evidence for your quackery let alone "proof" (another word that escapes you) I will consider your tirade a win on my part and (may, unless taunted) exit gracefully.  Yeah, although I have some coin, spending 10's of million's of dollars on weaponry and battling military red tape on your unlikely edification is not going to happen.

Oh, of course, tens of millions of dollars are being spent on bombs that if we used the entire world will supposedly end. On the other hand, the idea that other people took that money to buy yachts is inconceivable to you. At this point it's just sad. Why do people like you desire so much to be scammed and belittled by your own government?

Bye, bye now.

This is the second time (possibly the third?) you've told me you're going to leave the thread. As I said before, no one will miss you, you've added nothing to the thread and as far as I'm concerned I've been very lenient with how I've responded to your addled nonsense.

This is incorrect in multiple ways. They weren't "remote villages". Hiroshima was in the top 10 largest cities in Japan at the time and:

A top 10 largest city made entirely out of wooden huts? Use your noggin, AATW. Surely you didn't just google the population and think "ah yes this number obviously matches the pictures of Hiroshima".

Again, I'd urge you to look some of the "after" photos. Some of the masonry buildings remain standing but you're acting like they were pristine and only the wooden ones burned. That's simply not true. In fact in this image you can see some of the masonry ones are seriously damaged. That building at the bottom looks like wood actually and is standing, maybe it was protected in some way by another structure.

Masonry buildings are also damaged in firebombing.

Your claim of firebombing makes no sense. How would you deploy enough firebombs to wreak that much damage in one go? The witness testimony clearly describes a single explosion.

They firebombed a remote village, killing the entire population, then had "eye witnesses" describe fantastical nonsense.

That's firebombing, is it?

Yes.

And you surely understand about the half-life of a radiation source?

Do you? You told me earlier that Hiroshima was fine and not radioactive at all after some cleanup. Which truth are we going with now? The more convenient one?

Again, the physics is similar but not identical.

Blowing up an entire village and boiling a large tank of water are not "similar".

[AATW]

Surely you didn't just google the population and think "ah yes this number obviously matches the pictures of Hiroshima".

No. I also looked in to why it was chosen as a target (something which, to be honest, I've never really given too much thought to). It wasn't just some remote village. I have provided the evidence, which you have ignored.

They firebombed a remote village, killing the entire population, then had "eye witnesses" describe fantastical nonsense.

This is incorrect. It wasn't a remote village and only about a quarter of the population died.
This is the textbook conspiracy theorist tactic. Just dismiss all the evidence that you're wrong as fake or wrong while providing no evidence of your own assertions.

You told me earlier that Hiroshima was fine and not radioactive at all after some cleanup. Which truth are we going with now? The more convenient one?

I'm not clear what you're not understanding. There is no contradiction here.
A nuclear weapon releases a lot of radioactive material which can be harmful to people and was shown to be harmful to the population of Hiroshima. I have provided the evidence for that.
It can also be true that after the initial blast there isn't a lot of long lasting high level of radioactive material.

Blowing up an entire village and boiling a large tank of water are not "similar".

Well. In a way they are. They both involve generating energy. The physics that generates the energy to do those two things can be the same. The former is a controlled reaction, the second is a deliberately set off chain reaction intended to release a lot of energy very quickly.