Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10%
of the affected population was killed.

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed. www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm
Comparing kiloton equivalents, it might well be that the Tokyo fire
raid was much more devastating.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10%
of the affected population was killed.

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed.


But how many of them were in the area affected by the bomb?

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed.


But how many of them were in the area affected by the bomb?

But that, surely, is the whole point! The atomic bomb makes rubble
bounce. The same or less kilotonnage spread over a wide area might
well do much more damage.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed.


But how many of them were in the area affected by the bomb?


But that, surely, is the whole point! The atomic bomb makes rubble
bounce. The same or less kilotonnage spread over a wide area might
well do much more damage.


To structures, perhaps.

But even if we use the lower mortality figures of 7-8% for Tokyo, and
31% for the nukes, there are still a lot more killed within the
affected area with nukes.

To put it another way, compare the number killed with one of the
A-bombs with the number killed in Tokyo. Then compare the area
destroyed and the population density of that area.

It is true that "people not taking cover from the nukes" is going to
skew this some, but I expect that there would still be a considerable
difference even if that was taken into account.

On 22 Mar 2004 06:54:55 -0800, (hiroshima
facts) wrote:

To put it another way, compare the number killed with one of the
A-bombs with the number killed in Tokyo. Then compare the area
destroyed and the population density of that area.

No. Compare the kilotonnage per fatality.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On 22 Mar 2004 06:54:55 -0800, (hiroshima
facts) wrote:

To put it another way, compare the number killed with one of the
A-bombs with the number killed in Tokyo. Then compare the area
destroyed and the population density of that area.

No. Compare the kilotonnage per fatality.


Nuclear weapons may well be more costly that way, but you get what you
pay for.

I don't think there are any instances of conventional weapons killing
more than 10% of people in the affected area, and arguments here point
to even less than 10%, even for the most deadly use of conventional
weapons.

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

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

hiroshima facts wrote in message . ..

Nuclear weapons may well be more costly that way, but you get what you
pay for.

I don't think there are any instances of conventional weapons killing
more than 10% of people in the affected area, and arguments here point
to even less than 10%, even for the most deadly use of conventional
weapons.


The trouble yet again is "Affected area" is being defined in a way
to increase the perceived lethality of the atomic attacks.

Also how many of those conventional attacks were against unwarned
populations? Try Pforzheim in 1945 for a very lethal conventional attack.

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

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.

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".

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.