Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
m...
"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?


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

In most of the Japanese cities firebombed, the death rate was about
1%.

The A-bombs killed about half of the people in the affected area both
times.

Nope. You need to change your nickname from "Hiroshima Facts" to "Hiroshima
Fantasies". Had half the population of Hiroshima died then the death toll
there would have been well over 100K, which is plainly not the case.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Nope. You need to change your nickname from "Hiroshima Facts" to "Hiroshima
Fantasies".

This was a poor substitute for an intelligent argument.



Had half the population of Hiroshima died then the death toll
there would have been well over 100K, which is plainly not the case.

"Half the affected area" and "half the population of the city" are not
necessarily the same thing.

"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Nope. You need to change your nickname from "Hiroshima Facts" to
"Hiroshima
Fantasies".

This was a poor substitute for an intelligent argument.



Had half the population of Hiroshima died then the death toll
there would have been well over 100K, which is plainly not the case.

"Half the affected area" and "half the population of the city" are not
necessarily the same thing.

I think you are going to have to very carefully define what *you*
mean by "the affected area". You apparently don't mean to include
the entire cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I would like to see your
interpretation of "the affected area" as applied to Tokyo as well.

"John Keeney" wrote in message ...

I think you are going to have to very carefully define what *you*
mean by "the affected area". You apparently don't mean to include
the entire cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I would like to see your
interpretation of "the affected area" as applied to Tokyo as well.


I don't have all the methodology that went into the estimate, but I
presume "affected area" refers to the areas that were leveled in the
attack.

The "affected area" for the nukes was counted as "within 2 km".