Talk:Firestorm

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firestorm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304191348/http://hps.org/homeland/documents/Planning_Guidance_for_Response_to_a_Nuclear_Detonation-2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf to http://hps.org/homeland/documents/Planning_Guidance_for_Response_to_a_Nuclear_Detonation-2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309034811/http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/rffireloadsurveymethodologies.pdf to http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/rffireloadsurveymethodologies.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons in comparison to conventional weapons, why?

To be blunt, this is a stupid comparison. Radioactive fallout is not included in the comparison. The ratio of a single bomb vs hundreds or thousands of bombs to generate the same amount of destruction, if not more. Is so absurd I'm surprised it is still present. Once again because of the continued deadly effects of radiation from a nuclear explosion vs nothing of conventional weapons posing ongoing health risks. Fire bomb a city and as soon as the fires are out the city can rebuild. Drop a nuclear weapon on a city and it is years if not decades before the city can begin to rebuild. What does any of this have to do with a natural phenomenon caused by large fires? I have no idea. None, I am assuming. 73.228.222.112 (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hiroshima bombings

there is still scholarly debate onto whether the fires that occurred in the aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing constitute a true firestorm, specifically when compared to the firestorm in the aftermath of the Hamburg bombing campaign, which is widely looked to as an archetype for man-made firestorms. I suggest that Hiroshima be removed from the list with a mention of the possibility of it, indeed, being a firestorm ~2025-37888-70 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)