Sigh. Yes, wilderness... except of course for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now that's just moving the goal posts. You were talking about big MT+ bombs earlier, and I was responding to that. Anyways, those two together obviously don't meet the standards Michel was talking about.
Do you really think cities burn 100 times worse than wilderness? Have you ever seen a forest fire?
This is why I went out of my way to explicitly describe where the bombs were dropped (especially Tsar Bomba) to show that they were
not dropped on forests, and especially were dropped on areas that don't burn. Like deserts, or the ocean.
I'm not even going to start on the fact that 10kt is more like an artillery shell for battlefield use than a city-buster. A 10kt bomb isn't going to burn, say, New York to the ground.
So the only two city-busters ever actually used, which did bust cities, were just artillery shells? I mean, come on. Anyways, are you seriously suggesting that the fires started by a 10kT device dropped on New York (or other cities, particularly if you dropped it in the right places) won't be
at least extremely devastating and burn a large part of the city, between the water main breaches, radioactivity, and immediate blast effects that mean firefighting efforts are going to be extremely compromised for some time, and the gas line breaches and immediate flash fires that will start many fires in different locations?