It was patently obvious I was discussing the relative technologies of the weapons, not the outcomes. And it is the technology, not the outcome, that is relevant in this discussion. So was this due to misunderstanding, or something else?
Oh dear, what have I started.
Yes
KenV, you were indeed "patently obvious" but in the wider geopolitical context, surely it is outcomes (
inshallah potential outcomes) that have as much a place in any discussion as technologies.
Given the choice of being in Hiroshima on 6 Aug 45 or Nagasaki 3 days later, what difference would it have made? (not that I was born anyway)
So was this due to misunderstanding, or something else?
I guess the "something else" might just have been innocently contributing to the wider discussion of nukes, and pointing out the sometimes apparently little known facts of the essential difference between Little Boy and Fat Man.
Nor did I realise the constraints on the breadth of the discussion.
One always finds "thread drift" one of the most endearing things about Pprune ......
But I'll say no more (other than to say there is no significance whatsoever in the italicised word I use above
)