On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:14:41 -0500, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:24:40 -0400, Bill Kambic
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:34:24 -0700 (PDT), Typhoon502
wrote:

On Jun 4, 2:22*pm, Alan Dicey
wrote:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a
point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes.

Overall less destructive but you have to admit, the big-assed bang
they made worked a lot faster than the firebombing.

Auyp. And that's another point glaringly missed by the anti-nuke
crowd.

One bomb, one airplane, one crew at risk versus waves of
B-17/B-24,Wellingtons, etc. Clear definition of the concept of
"economy of force" and "force multiplier".

Not to mention the waves of landing craft, carrier aircraft...and
Japanese school girls charging Marines while armed with sharpened
sticks.

Now, consider those weapons were in the 20KT range. The tactical nukes
we babied in the cold war were considerably smaller in dimension while
overwhelming larger in yields.

Indeed. Perhaps my most sobering designation of the Cold War was
Certified Nuclear Weapons Delivery Pilot.