Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

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.

"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.




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.

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.

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.