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.