DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Frdsdx26** · 03-11-2011, 06:46 PM

^
Yes and no. If the earthquake was under land, chances are there would have been more direct earthquake damage. However, there would not have been a tsunami, which seems to have cause a lot of damage on its own (and over a larger area).

03-11-2011, 06:46 PM	#7
Frdsdx26 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 467 Senior Member	^ Yes and no. If the earthquake was under land, chances are there would have been more direct earthquake damage. However, there would not have been a tsunami, which seems to have cause a lot of damage on its own (and over a larger area).
	Quote