I understand economic impact is not the whole story, but the Japanese estimate of all economic losses due to the Hiroshima bombing was 884 million yen, about 1.2 trillion 2021 US dollars, by my calculations. The cost of the war in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is all of a piece, was about 2.3 trillion USD. One was a $1.2 trillion atrocity; the other is a $2.3 trillion atrocity.
On another note, while Japan has recovered very well — thrived, even — after the impact of two nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union never did fully recover from its Afghanistan debacle, which was part of the background for its eventual collapse. Don't underestimate the undesirability of nuclear attacks or disastrous wars that can neither be won nor gained from.
> I understand economic impact is not the whole story, but the Japanese estimate of all economic losses due to the Hiroshima bombing
The bomb dropped on hiroshima was more than an magnitude smaller than a standard bomb these days.
> was 884 million yen, about 1.2 trillion 2021 US dollars, by my calculations.
~884 million yen at the time but that's a relatively meaningless number. A better measure would be 2% of economic wealth of Japan at the time which is where I assume you came up with the second number... for a 20kt fission type bomb dropped in a city of 350,000. A modern bomb 10x the size dropped on a modern city 10x the size is going to be measured in the 10s of trillions in costs - instantly for a single bomb, not part of a 20 year funding campaign that ends up recirculating a lot of money in the military industrial complex.
> On another note, while Japan has recovered very well — thrived, even — after the impact of two nuclear weapons
2 weapons totaling the 10th of a normal weapon at a time no other country had a nuclear weapon to retaliate with.
> the Soviet Union never did fully recover from its Afghanistan debacle, which was part of the background for its eventual collapse. Don't underestimate the undesirability of nuclear attacks or disastrous wars that can neither be won nor gained from.
Sure, plenty of things compounded have led to the downfall of countries over the last few thousand years. I can't however think of any reason or even set of reasons that would be comparable to millions of citizens dying overnight due to instantaneous deletion of a major population center... x100.
I understand your earlier point of military wars not exactly being rational - but:
Is it really moving the goalposts to say that comparing the economic impact spread over decades isn't the same as one experienced relatively instantaneously?
Or the risk of retaliation from a nuclear power isn't comparable to guerilla warfare?
Moving goalposts or not, it just doesn't seem to be an apt comparison to gauge military rationality.
You’re the one who moved them the other direction by bringing up Hiroshima in relation to contemporary nuclear war where all weapons in play would be thermonuclear (and there would be more than two).
You also have to realize that NATO invested tremendous amount of time and capital into the recovery of Japan and Germany following WW2. They didn't want a repeat of WW1 where the damage done to the defeated nations created a festering resentment and yet another war 20 years later.
You're right that there were other factors at play. I'm just trying to point out that the two are not as incomparable to one another as they were being made out to be.
On another note, while Japan has recovered very well — thrived, even — after the impact of two nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union never did fully recover from its Afghanistan debacle, which was part of the background for its eventual collapse. Don't underestimate the undesirability of nuclear attacks or disastrous wars that can neither be won nor gained from.