Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:23:21 -0500, "zxcv" wrote:

Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17 had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?


The effects of 1300 B-17s over a relatively wide area would spread the
destruction further. What an atomic bomb does that is so effective is
due to having all xxx kilotons go off at the same time and the same
place creating an enormous shockwave and wall of intense heat.

To put this in perspective, think of the bombs as hailstones. If I
have a hailstorm for 30 minutes with pea sized hail over, say a 2 acre
area and that hail had the equivalent water to 1/8 inch of rain, it
would cause a great deal of damage. But imagine the damage if there
were just one hailstone that weight 7000 lbs dropping from the sky.
Not nearly as much damage in most of the area, but where it hit, wow!

This, of course, is not an entirely fair analogy, since our bombing in
Japanese cities was designed to start firestorms, which did much more
damage and killed many more people than the bombs that started them.
----------------------
Mike Willey

Mike Willey wrote:

To put this in perspective, think of the bombs as hailstones. If I
have a hailstorm for 30 minutes with pea sized hail over, say a 2 acre
area and that hail had the equivalent water to 1/8 inch of rain, it
would cause a great deal of damage. But imagine the damage if there
were just one hailstone that weight 7000 lbs dropping from the sky.
Not nearly as much damage in most of the area, but where it hit, wow!


That's not a good reason either because why does it matter how
much damage is caused PAST the point where everything is
destroyed?...everything past that point is useless overkill...
--

-Gord.

hiroshima facts wrote in message . ..
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

How about we drop the "area affected" for the conventional bombs to
something like their known lethal blast area? In which case 90%
casualties can be expected, just be within so many feet of the bomb
going off. If we ignore anything outside this blast area, since after all
there will be only building damage, not destruction, we can make
conventional explosives quite lethal. Most of the area is actually
"missed" if you use the bomb blast radius.

That just changes the way the difference is stated. Nukes don't
"miss" any of the area affected, and so kill people that are in areas
otherwise missed.

I see the need to trim the post to take me out of context.

The claim was,

"However, I have not seen any arguments that have credited the A-bombs
with fewer than 30% fatalities in the area affected."

With the "area affected" being defined in a way to increase the
lethality of nuclear weapons. I simply altered the "area affected"
rule to be the same for both nuclear and conventional bombs,
that is within the lethal blast area of the individual bomb, not the
area of the city deemed to be the "area affected".

And "area affected" now seems to be defined as where people
were killed, not where buildings were largely destroyed, at least
for the nuclear weapons.

By the way there were survivors near ground zero of the nuclear
attacks, around 7% of people caught within 1,000 feet, the
claimed 2 km "area affected" rule means a circle of around 6,600
feet, the people caught between 6,000 and 7,000 feet had an
87.5% survival rate. Yet the claim is

"Nukes don't "miss" any of the area affected, and so kill people
that are in areas otherwise missed."

Try comparing like with like, the instantaneous nature of a large
explosion should mean an elevated lethality versus the same amount
of explosives dropped over say an hour. There is no need to set up
these absurd changes of definition of "area affected" between nuclear
and conventional attacks.

By using more explosive per person killed, you also kill a greater
portion of the people in the area you are bombing.

There is the overkill factor, since the blast dissipates as the square
of distance, the buildings near the centre are hit "too much".

Airbursts help with that quite a bit.

Ever seen the results of a 4,000 pound bomb that detonated before
hitting the ground, in fact any bomb that manages to detonate before
impact, so it wastes minimal energy throwing dirt around?

It does not change the point that the effect of a big bomb is "too
much" damage at the point of impact.

The blast pressure directly underneath an explosion at a burst height
optimized to maximize 30 PSI, is probably not as strong as the blast
pressure near an exploding conventional bomb.

I see, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at these optimal heights and
you have a belief this is smaller than the blast pressure of a conventional
bomb, is that a 100 pound or 22,000 pound conventional bomb, armour
piercing or high explosive?

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

hiroshima facts wrote in message .. .
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server.

hiroshima facts wrote in message
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
. ..
hiroshima facts wrote in message
I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on
"Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson
in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84,
they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed.
And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area"
for the estimate I was quoting.
In which case the affected area being defined as significantly less than
the area of blast and fire damage. There were deaths and damage
beyond the 2 km/6,600 feet radius.

I'm guessing the estimate tried to pick the area where most of the
buildings were leveled, and came up with 2 KM. Since a modern nuclear
attack that wanted to level a city would use either large enough
warheads (or a large enough numbers of warheads) to level everything,
this seems fair to me, although perhaps I should use a more precise
term than "area affected".

Let us understand this, fair for nuclear weapons is looking at the
most damaged areas when computing lethality. Fair for conventional
weapons is looking at a much bigger area, where damage is not as
severe in places when computing lethality.

I think the comparison was using the area where most buildings were
razed to the ground in each case.

I suggest you go look up the various damage levels involved in the
different attacks instead of telling us you are "facts" when you are
supplying "thoughts". Someone decided to use 2km as the radius
to measure the lethality for the nuclear strikes but a much larger
area for the conventional strikes, skewing the results.

There are zones of far more intense damage with nukes, such as the
zone exposed to at least a 20 PSI overpressure.

Ever seen the pictures of ground zero for a 4,000 pound HE bomb,
the RAF heavy bomber standard weapon in 1944/45?

Fair also seems to be assuming multiple larger atomic attacks,

Since a modern nuclear attack would use enough nukes to achieve
whatever level of damage was desired, I don't see why it isn't fair to
consider that.

Let us understand this, it is "fair" to compare lethality of conventional
and nuclear attacks from WWII by assuming the nuclear attacks are
multiple, modern attacks. It looks like the biggest conventional raid
in WWII was around 1/3 the size of the smallest nuclear weapon used
in terms of explosive power. So now we compare delivering what,
10 to 100 times more explosive power and announce hey the bigger
strike is more lethal.

Congratulations.

Now stop comparing the lethality of conventional and nuclear attacks
from WWII which were nothing like the new "fair" standard. How
about we change the HE bombs into biowar weapons, then call
that "fair".

I also think it would also be fair to count any intensity/numbers of
conventional bombs that are within the limits of practicality for
delivering the attack.


The limit on conventional delivery of explosives is aircraft over
target, the Lancaster delivered around 10,000 pounds of
bombs, put a modern bomber on the job and the number goes
up by a factor of 4 or so. Or simply switch to a combination
of conventional bombing and missile strikes to increase the
explosive delivery rate.

Just as the WWII limitations on nuclear strikes have gone
away, keep the bomb small enough for the aircraft to survive,
the limitations on delivering conventional bombs have been
significantly reduced.

But I think with conventional bombs there will always be a large
number who will be able to successfully flee the firestorm before it
takes hold, no matter how intense the bombing.

Hamburg was so lethal because of the firestorm killing people
in otherwise safe shelters. Normally the best thing to do in an
air raid is get into a shelter. Large numbers of people running
away on the surface are going to be killed by blast, stampedes,
vehicle collisions and so on.

presumably also against unwarned populations.

I think it is reasonable to account for that. I just don't think it
accounts for *all* the difference. Also, given that a nuclear strike
can hit with very little warning, there might not be much time for a
population to prepare.

Now what are we comparing? WWII conventional air raids to
ICBMs? The IJN strike on Pearl Harbor used around 0.1 to 0.15
kt of bombs, killed 2,400 people. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima
was around 100 times more powerful, it should have killed 240,000
people at this level of lethality. Take away the people killed on the
Arizona and you still end up with the Hiroshima bomb needing to
kill around 120,000 for equivalent lethality.

Try to understand the results of air raids in WWII varied dramatically,
using 2 attacks to generalise the effects is an exercise in selective
quotation, not facts.

The two things that strike me as being unique about nukes is that they
can take out an large area rapidly, giving no time to flee once the
attack starts, and the prompt radiation kills people in the areas of
heavier damage who might otherwise survive the blast.

Again this assumes people are unprotected and ignores the fact
fleeing during an attack is likely to raise the number of dead. The
protection from blast gives good protection from radiation.

A machine gun can kill thousands of people per hour if they have
no protection.

It is also different to the measure used for Tokyo, since it does not
use dead plus homeless, substituting a 2 km circle instead. It makes
the atomic attacks look more lethal by changing the choice of
measurement. The comparison between the two as reported is
therefore invalid.
The Tokyo raid destroyed 16 square miles, which is the area of a
circle of around 2.25 miles or 3.6 km in radius, what was the death
toll like for the 2 km circle?
As far as I know, there was no concentration of deaths in the Tokyo
raid that would change the ratio if we focused on a smaller area.

Actually there were concentrations of deaths, the canals and rivers
became choked with bodies as people tried to escape the heat,
the incoming tide caused drownings.

But that is due to the geography of the target, not the nature of the
bomb. And the people only ended up in that concentration because they
ran there once the bombing started.

They ended up in the canals because the fires cut off retreat. The
districts that were cut off by fire had the higher death rates.


It all came down to whether the fires cut off people's retreat, if they
did not more people survived. There was not an even x deaths per
square mile in the "affected area", as a simple exercise in logic
the people at the fringes had a better chance of escaping.

I think it would be fair to trim off the fringe areas and count the
casualty rate in the core area.

Now we have "core area" to go with "area affected". Understand
there are plenty of raids in WWII that killed more people than the
atomic strikes per ton of explosive dropped. Even in terms of
absolute numbers killed Hiroshima comes in at 1 or 2 with Tokyo,
Nagasaki at 4 behind Hamburg at 3, Dresden at 5.

Are there *any* instances of conventional weapons ever killing more
than 8% (either of the "area affected" or the "area leveled")?

Yes night of 23/24 February 1945 RAF Bomber Command versus
Pforzheim. The city, pre war population of 80,000, had been the
target of Mosquito harassment raids by night plus some day strikes
in the order of 100 to 300 tons of bombs before the big raid. On
23/34 February 1945 some 1,740 tons of bombs caused a firestorm,
around 17,000 to 18,000 people killed on this night. This raid was
responsible for most of the damage to the city during hostilities.
Some 83% of the built up area destroyed for the war. In terms
of deaths per bomb it works out to a maximum of 1 death per 190
pounds of bombs, around 2/3 the lethality of the Hamburg firestorm.

Assuming no growth in population the Pforzheim raid's lethality works
out at 21 to 23% of the total population, but around 20% of the city
survived, so 5/4 times 21 to 22 is 26 to 28%.

Thanks. I didn't know their proportion got so high.

I presume though this has no effect on the claims about the relative
lethalities of nuclear and conventional attacks.

Simply given the reality there are only two atomic strikes to go on
and their lethality per "ton" of bomb varied so much and they were
against unwarned populations, and the variability seen in WWII
conventional bombing means claims about how much more lethal
atomic weapons can be do not have solid evidence to back them.
Hopefully it stays this way. As I said before I would expect a higher
lethality for nuclear weapons thanks to the instantaneous nature of
much of the damage and the much higher "explosive" yield, how
much higher is another question.

I don't see what lethality per ton has to do with it.

It has everything to do with it if you want to compare conventional
and nuclear attack lethalities, otherwise why not simply compare
the lethality of say 2 Zeppelins in WWI and 100 Lancasters in WWII.
No guess as to which one kills more people.

No matter how much conventional explosive is dropped on a city, a lot
of people are still going to be able to flee the raid once it starts.
This is something that nukes can overcome.

Sigh, to minimise casualties move people before or after the raid,
not during it, keep shelters away from flammable areas, keep the
people in the shelters during the raid. Movement during a raid is
obscured by smoke and dust and exposes people to shrapnel,
blast, stampedes and rapidly changing conditions, the "bridge" to
safety being hit for example, the confusion as landmarks are
destroyed or obscured.

In WWII the lethality of conventional attacks varied widely, starting
large fires was the usual way of killing large numbers of people,
incendiary bombs were the best way to start fires. The WWII
nuclear attacks were at least 3 times more powerful in explosive
terms than the biggest conventional raid, but the biggest conventional
raid was not the most lethal, in either absolute terms or deaths per ton
of bombs used.

So far instead of supplying facts you are supplying opinions and
showing a great lack of knowledge about the results of conventional
air raids. Then you bias the definitions to make the nuclear attacks
look more dangerous.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"zxcv" wrote in message ...
Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17 had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?

The residual radiation is a great deal less. So is the psychological
effect.

Most Americans would be better of if the Germans had of developed
nuclear exposives first and demonstrated them on either empty US
landscape). It would have saced 500,000 lives in Vietnam and quite a
few mutilations of Americans in Iraq (I note the oxymoron predictions
of a dessert quaqmire are looking realistic) while the japanese would
have kept the Red Chinese in check in Korea in the 1050s.

On 1 Apr 2004 06:21:13 -0800, (Eunometic) wrote:


Most Americans would be better of if the Germans had of developed
nuclear exposives first and demonstrated them on either empty US
landscape).

KER-PLONK, begone idiotic national socialist gob****e.


greg

--
Cast in the name of God. Ye not guilty.

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

I suggest you go look up the various damage levels involved in the
different attacks instead of telling us you are "facts" when you are
supplying "thoughts". Someone decided to use 2km as the radius
to measure the lethality for the nuclear strikes but a much larger
area for the conventional strikes, skewing the results.


OK, here is my version, based on damage levels:

Using nukes, it is possible to subject a city to multiple groundbursts
resulting in at least 100 PSI overpressure throughout a large area.
Bomb shelters that are conspicuous enough to be detected by
reconnaissance flights can be targeted for a direct hit.

I expect that this will result in 99.9999% casualties amongst any part
of the populace within the 100 PSI zone that is not inside an
inconspicuous 100 PSI blast shelter.

Had WWII continued, our weapons output in early 1946 should have been
able to produce enough A-bombs every three months to achieve that
level of destruction over an area of 3.5 square miles.


I expect that no conventional weapons attack, from any era you choose,
could achieve that level of casualties.




Fair also seems to be assuming multiple larger atomic attacks,

Since a modern nuclear attack would use enough nukes to achieve
whatever level of damage was desired, I don't see why it isn't fair to
consider that.

Let us understand this, it is "fair" to compare lethality of conventional
and nuclear attacks from WWII by assuming the nuclear attacks are
multiple, modern attacks. It looks like the biggest conventional raid
in WWII was around 1/3 the size of the smallest nuclear weapon used
in terms of explosive power. So now we compare delivering what,
10 to 100 times more explosive power and announce hey the bigger
strike is more lethal.

Congratulations.

Since nuclear weapons have to potential to provide much more explosive
power than can be achieved by conventional weapons, and thus kill far
more people than can be achieved by conventional weapons, I think it
is fair to note this when comparing nukes to conventional weapons.

You seem to be simultaneously acknowledging this fact and taking issue
with me for also stating it.




Now stop comparing the lethality of conventional and nuclear attacks
from WWII which were nothing like the new "fair" standard. How
about we change the HE bombs into biowar weapons, then call
that "fair".

I acknowledge that bioweapons are equal to nukes in killing people.
They are considered WMDs for very good reason.

It would also be possible to combine bioweapons with conventional
weapons, and get the casualty levels and property destruction that a
nuke would produce.




presumably also against unwarned populations.

I think it is reasonable to account for that. I just don't think it
accounts for *all* the difference. Also, given that a nuclear strike
can hit with very little warning, there might not be much time for a
population to prepare.

Now what are we comparing? WWII conventional air raids to
ICBMs?

I think nukes have more potential to spring a sudden attack on a
population than conventional weapons do, at any level of technology.

This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server

hiroshima facts wrote in message . ..
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

I suggest you go look up the various damage levels involved in the
different attacks instead of telling us you are "facts" when you are
supplying "thoughts". Someone decided to use 2km as the radius
to measure the lethality for the nuclear strikes but a much larger
area for the conventional strikes, skewing the results.

OK, here is my version,

No this is not a version, this is a change of subject, from the fact
the definitions were changed when comparing the lethality of
WWII nuclear and conventional attacks.

based on damage levels:

Using nukes, it is possible to subject a city to multiple groundbursts
resulting in at least 100 PSI overpressure throughout a large area.
Bomb shelters that are conspicuous enough to be detected by
reconnaissance flights can be targeted for a direct hit.

I see, bomb shelters that are conspicuous, direct hit, I presume
you have noticed the accuracy of the nuclear weapons strikes,
the aiming points were missed. I presume you have noticed the
average accuracy of WWII bombers dropping from 30,000 feet.
I presume all the aircraft release together and achieve a perfect
bombing pattern, with no weapon caught in the blast of another
before it detonates.

Direct hits presumably mean ground bursts?

Why not parachute commandos in with machine guns and line
up the population and just shoot them? It seems as realistic.

Note deliberately targeting air raid shelters is more than any
air force did in WWII, also such structures would best be
attacked by armour piercing bombs.

I expect that this will result in 99.9999% casualties amongst any part
of the populace within the 100 PSI zone that is not inside an
inconspicuous 100 PSI blast shelter.

It is becoming clear that your assumptions are nuclear weapons
incredibly bad, definitions altered to suit. You can explain how
come 7% of the people caught within 1,000 feet survived the
real attacks despite no warning but you have decided to announce
only 1 survivor in a million for your hypothetical attack?

Had WWII continued, our weapons output in early 1946 should have been
able to produce enough A-bombs every three months to achieve that
level of destruction over an area of 3.5 square miles.

The Tokyo fire storm raid destroyed nearly 16 square miles or nearly
25% of all buildings in the city.

Right so we have nuclear attacks delivering 60 to 100,000 kt being
compared to conventional attacks delivering around 5% the explosive
yield. Furthermore the aircrew delivering the nuclear attacks have
superb intelligence and well above average accuracy, no weather
problems, interceptions, mechanical failures and so on.

The bomb tonnage delivered by the 20th Air Force looks like this,
month, tonnage

Jun-44 547
Jul-44 209
Aug-44 252
Sep-44 521
Oct-44 1,669
Nov-44 2,205
Dec-44 3,661
Jan-45 3,410
Feb-45 4,020
Mar-45 15,283
Apr-45 17,492
May-45 24,285
Jun-45 32,542
Jul-45 43,091
Aug-45 21,873

Now add the arrival of the previously European based bomber units
to the 1946 attacks if we are going to talk 1946, including RAF units.
After all there was still 75% of Tokyo to go.

I expect that no conventional weapons attack, from any era you choose,
could achieve that level of casualties.

This is hardly surprising, since the nuclear attacks are simply
allowed to be so good and so much bigger than the attacks
they are being compared to. The result was in before the
experiment was run.

Fair also seems to be assuming multiple larger atomic attacks,

Since a modern nuclear attack would use enough nukes to achieve
whatever level of damage was desired, I don't see why it isn't fair to
consider that.

Let us understand this, it is "fair" to compare lethality of conventional
and nuclear attacks from WWII by assuming the nuclear attacks are
multiple, modern attacks. It looks like the biggest conventional raid
in WWII was around 1/3 the size of the smallest nuclear weapon used
in terms of explosive power. So now we compare delivering what,
10 to 100 times more explosive power and announce hey the bigger
strike is more lethal.

Congratulations.

Since nuclear weapons have to potential to provide much more explosive
power than can be achieved by conventional weapons, and thus kill far
more people than can be achieved by conventional weapons, I think it
is fair to note this when comparing nukes to conventional weapons.

Try again, fair is comparing lethality versus the effort expended,
tonnage of explosives used for example, not by changing the
definitions.

You seem to be simultaneously acknowledging this fact and taking issue
with me for also stating it.

Now stop comparing the lethality of conventional and nuclear attacks
from WWII which were nothing like the new "fair" standard. How
about we change the HE bombs into biowar weapons, then call
that "fair".

Now stop comparing the lethality of conventional and nuclear attacks
from WWII which were nothing like the new "fair" standard. How
about we change the HE bombs into biowar weapons, then call
that "fair".

I acknowledge that bioweapons are equal to nukes in killing people.
They are considered WMDs for very good reason.

I suggest rather than changing the subject you start to analyse why
you need to bias the results in favour of nuclear weapons.

It would also be possible to combine bioweapons with conventional
weapons, and get the casualty levels and property destruction that a
nuke would produce.

It is also possible to achieve, with conventional weapons, the sorts of
lethalities that were seen in the nuclear attacks. It was also quite
possible to have minimal loss of life in a major conventional attack.
These are the results of thousands of WWII bombing raids. Trying
to selectively choose results and definitions to make the 2 nuclear
attacks look more lethal is foolish, after all in absolute terms
Nagasaki was around 1/2 the casualties, and in explosive terms
around 2/7 the casualties. Those figures alone should give pause
to the creation of wonder nuclear strikes.

deleted bits, to the next

The limit on conventional delivery of explosives is aircraft over
target, the Lancaster delivered around 10,000 pounds of
bombs, put a modern bomber on the job and the number goes
up by a factor of 4 or so. Or simply switch to a combination
of conventional bombing and missile strikes to increase the
explosive delivery rate.

Just as the WWII limitations on nuclear strikes have gone
away, keep the bomb small enough for the aircraft to survive,
the limitations on delivering conventional bombs have been
significantly reduced.

Hamburg was so lethal because of the firestorm killing people
in otherwise safe shelters. Normally the best thing to do in an
air raid is get into a shelter. Large numbers of people running
away on the surface are going to be killed by blast, stampedes,
vehicle collisions and so on.

presumably also against unwarned populations.

I think it is reasonable to account for that. I just don't think it
accounts for *all* the difference. Also, given that a nuclear strike
can hit with very little warning, there might not be much time for a
population to prepare.

Now what are we comparing? WWII conventional air raids to
ICBMs?

deleted text, to the next

"The IJN strike on Pearl Harbor used around 0.1 to 0.15
kt of bombs, killed 2,400 people. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima
was around 100 times more powerful, it should have killed 240,000
people at this level of lethality. Take away the people killed on the
Arizona and you still end up with the Hiroshima bomb needing to
kill around 120,000 for equivalent lethality.

Try to understand the results of air raids in WWII varied dramatically,
using 2 attacks to generalise the effects is an exercise in selective
quotation, not facts."

I think nukes have more potential to spring a sudden attack on a
population than conventional weapons do, at any level of technology.

I would have thought the sudden attack ability comes down to the
delivery system, aircraft, ICBM, shipping container, truck, and the
warning system in place to detect the approaching delivery system.
There are clear examples from WWII of populations ignoring
warnings until it was too late because the bombers had previously
always attacked somewhere else.

The rest of the post is simply deleted text,

Again this assumes people are unprotected and ignores the fact
fleeing during an attack is likely to raise the number of dead. The
protection from blast gives good protection from radiation.

A machine gun can kill thousands of people per hour if they have
no protection.

Now we have "core area" to go with "area affected". Understand
there are plenty of raids in WWII that killed more people than the
atomic strikes per ton of explosive dropped. Even in terms of
absolute numbers killed Hiroshima comes in at 1 or 2 with Tokyo,
Nagasaki at 4 behind Hamburg at 3, Dresden at 5.

It has everything to do with it if you want to compare conventional
and nuclear attack lethalities, otherwise why not simply compare
the lethality of say 2 Zeppelins in WWI and 100 Lancasters in WWII.
No guess as to which one kills more people.

Sigh, to minimise casualties move people before or after the raid,
not during it, keep shelters away from flammable areas, keep the
people in the shelters during the raid. Movement during a raid is
obscured by smoke and dust and exposes people to shrapnel,
blast, stampedes and rapidly changing conditions, the "bridge" to
safety being hit for example, the confusion as landmarks are
destroyed or obscured.

In WWII the lethality of conventional attacks varied widely, starting
large fires was the usual way of killing large numbers of people,
incendiary bombs were the best way to start fires. The WWII
nuclear attacks were at least 3 times more powerful in explosive
terms than the biggest conventional raid, but the biggest conventional
raid was not the most lethal, in either absolute terms or deaths per ton
of bombs used.

So far instead of supplying facts you are supplying opinions and
showing a great lack of knowledge about the results of conventional
air raids. Then you bias the definitions to make the nuclear attacks
look more dangerous.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:43:00 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:


Now add the arrival of the previously European based bomber units
to the 1946 attacks if we are going to talk 1946, including RAF units.


Quite, with AIR plans for 1000 odd Avro Lincolns coming to the party.

ISTR also talk of making them inflight refuelable.



greg

--
Cast in the name of God. Ye not guilty.

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On 1 Apr 2004 06:21:13 -0800, (Eunometic) wrote:


Most Americans would be better of if the Germans had of developed
nuclear exposives first and demonstrated them on empty US landscape.

KER-PLONK, begone idiotic national socialist gob****e.


greg


I'm always pleased when irritants like you self censore themselves.

I stand by my assertion. The US people lost by firstly getting
involved in the war and finally by ensuring the defeat of Germany and
thereby the spread of communism. Apart from the vast resources she
devoted to containing communism the USA developed an ideology to match
the internationalism of communism that is leading to the disolution
of the descendents of the people that fought.