By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
t3mporary_126 said:
ebw said:

Why wouldn't you call it that?  Is there a different nuclear disaster that you would call worse?

I think the active deployment of the bombs in Japan in WW2 was a diaster as a result of war that was worse than Cheronobyl which was unintentional. But maybe that's just subjective.

Fair enough... The size of the nuclear event in Chernobyl was larger but Hiroshima caused far more loss of life, and I agree it was worse (just like an 8.2 earthquake in a major city would be worse than a 8.6 in the middle of nowhere).  I would sooner call it a massacre rather than a disaster, which carries a connotation of being an accident ("ill-fated").  But it's not unreasonable to classify deliberate acts of war as disasters.