![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server 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. Visual bombing gave reasonable accuracy. Good enough to get an A-bomb close enough to hit any shelter that was noticed. 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. The bombers could release together, or they could fly in one bomb every few minutes. It would work either way. Direct hits presumably mean ground bursts? Yes. All the bombs in my example were ground bursts. Why not parachute commandos in with machine guns and line up the population and just shoot them? It seems as realistic. Ground bursts were a perfectly realistic option using 1945 nuclear technology. 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. A nearby groundburst from an A-bomb would be quite effective. 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. My assumptions are that nuclear weapons are incredibly effective. They are perfectly capable of producing a 100 PSI shock. 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? None of the survivors experienced a 100+ PSI overpressure. Everyone within the 100 PSI overpressure area in my example does experience such a blast wave. In addition, many of them would be directly exposed to fireball plasma, and to incredibly intense radiation. I included the one-in-a-million survivor just to be conservative in my estimate. 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. My example used about 1,000kt total explosive power. 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 saw nothing in any three month period that would equal 1,000kt worth of explosive. 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. Nuclear weapons are allowed to be so much bigger because they ARE so much bigger. Had the war continued into 1946, our bomb output would have been 332.42 kilotons per month (although no single bomb would be over 50kt). 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. It is fair to note that by providing much more tonnage of explosive than could ever be provided by conventional weapons, nuclear weapons can kill far more people. 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. I have no need to bias anything. Nuclear weapons are far more deadly than conventional weapons on their own, with no need of bias. It is also possible to achieve, with conventional weapons, the sorts of lethalities that were seen in the nuclear attacks. How much conventional explosive do you think it would take to kill 50% of the people in a 2km radius? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How accurate was B-26 bombing? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 59 | March 3rd 04 10:10 PM |
Area bombing is not a dirty word. | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 82 | February 11th 04 02:10 PM |
WW2 bombing | Bernardz | Military Aviation | 10 | January 14th 04 01:07 PM |
WarPac War Plans-any conventional? | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 1 | December 8th 03 09:29 PM |
Looking for Info. on Vietnam Bombing | Seraphim | Military Aviation | 0 | October 19th 03 01:52 AM |