Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

hiroshima facts wrote in message . ..
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

So presumably the "affected area/population" is being defined as
something less than the total city, only the districts damaged to a
defined extent and affects on people again to a defined extent.

Yes.

Which makes the figures very vulnerable to arbitrary definitions.

Arthur Harris' acreage destroyed table says 75% of Hamburg and
59% of Dresden were destroyed during the war. The Tokyo fire
storm raid destroyed nearly 16 square miles or nearly 25% of all
buildings in the city, over 1,000,000 left homeless.

The attack on Hiroshima killed around 80,000 and made a further
180,000 homeless, so 80/260 or 31% of the people affected, using
homeless and killed as the definition of affected. As noted above
Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8% using this measure.

The figures behind the 10% claim presume 1 million affected and
100,000 killed.

(10% for Tokyo)

Yet those figures should then read 9%, 100,000 dead out of 1,100,000
dead and homeless, since the two categories are mutually exclusive.

I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on
"Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson
in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84,
they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed.
And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area"
for the estimate I was quoting.

In which case the affected area being defined as significantly less than
the area of blast and fire damage. There were deaths and damage
beyond the 2 km/6,600 feet radius.

It is also different to the measure used for Tokyo, since it does not
use dead plus homeless, substituting a 2 km circle instead. It makes
the atomic attacks look more lethal by changing the choice of
measurement. The comparison between the two as reported is
therefore invalid.

The Tokyo raid destroyed 16 square miles, which is the area of a
circle of around 2.25 miles or 3.6 km in radius, what was the death
toll like for the 2 km circle?

On a comparative scale Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8%, Hiroshima 31%
deaths when you count the dead and homeless as the "affected
population", making the atomic strikes about 4 times as lethal.
Though this ignores the reality Hiroshima was not under air raid alert
at the time but Tokyo was, which could account for much to even all
of the difference in lethality.

It looks like the bombing campaign against Germany killed around 1
person per 4,600 pounds of bombs dropped, using the pre war German
borders definition of Germany. The strike on Antwerp I mentioned killed
at a rate much higher than that. Now it could be the reason this strike made
it to the history books was because it was an extreme example of lethality,
but it does show how variable the results could be. In the bombing
campaign against French targets the civilian death toll was around 1 death
per 20,000 pounds of bombs. In theory, assuming Little Boy had a 15,000
ton effectiveness, Hiroshima works out to 1 death per 375 "pounds", the
Antwerp raid 1 death per 360 pounds. Fat Man at 23,000 tons yield works
out to around 1 death per 1,300 "pounds".

The RAF Hamburg firestorm raid dropped 2,707 short tons of bombs,
some of which missed, but killed around 40,000 people, that is around
1 death per 135 pounds of bombs. Many of the deaths were to lack
of oxygen/carbon monoxide in the shelters which had not been set up
to handle such bad fires.

Back to Tokyo,

Put it another way, the Tokyo Police report has 1 injured for every 2
dead, assume the same ratio applies to housing and you have over
1,000,000 homeless and over another 500,000 whose house was
damaged, they would be "affected" as well. That means the dead
as a percentage of affected goes to 84,000 out of 1,600,000, back
down to the 5% range of the European fire storms.

Or again Tokyo had nearly 25% of buildings destroyed, again assume
a 2 to 1 ratio destroyed to damaged, and we have over 1/3 of the city
affected, which would mean, in theory 2,000,000 people. So the
percentage drops to 4%. Just choose the definitions and drop out
the numbers.

This ignores the problems in determining a good population figure for
the city, let alone a subset of districts, given the attacks by definition
would destroy some of the records needed to determine the population
present.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
hiroshima facts wrote in message . ..

I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on
"Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson
in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84,
they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed.
And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area"
for the estimate I was quoting.

In which case the affected area being defined as significantly less than
the area of blast and fire damage. There were deaths and damage
beyond the 2 km/6,600 feet radius.

I'm guessing the estimate tried to pick the area where most of the
buildings were leveled, and came up with 2 KM. Since a modern nuclear
attack that wanted to level a city would use either large enough
warheads (or a large enough numbers of warheads) to level everything,
this seems fair to me, although perhaps I should use a more precise
term than "area affected".




It is also different to the measure used for Tokyo, since it does not
use dead plus homeless, substituting a 2 km circle instead. It makes
the atomic attacks look more lethal by changing the choice of
measurement. The comparison between the two as reported is
therefore invalid.

The Tokyo raid destroyed 16 square miles, which is the area of a
circle of around 2.25 miles or 3.6 km in radius, what was the death
toll like for the 2 km circle?

As far as I know, there was no concentration of deaths in the Tokyo
raid that would change the ratio if we focused on a smaller area.




On a comparative scale Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8%, Hiroshima 31%
deaths when you count the dead and homeless as the "affected
population", making the atomic strikes about 4 times as lethal.
Though this ignores the reality Hiroshima was not under air raid alert
at the time but Tokyo was, which could account for much to even all
of the difference in lethality.

I don't think it could account for all of it.

Are there *any* instances of conventional weapons ever killing more
than 8% (either of the "area affected" or the "area leveled")?

This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server.

hiroshima facts wrote in message
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
. ..
hiroshima facts wrote in message
I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on
"Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson
in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84,
they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed.
And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area"
for the estimate I was quoting.
In which case the affected area being defined as significantly less than
the area of blast and fire damage. There were deaths and damage
beyond the 2 km/6,600 feet radius.

I'm guessing the estimate tried to pick the area where most of the
buildings were leveled, and came up with 2 KM. Since a modern nuclear
attack that wanted to level a city would use either large enough
warheads (or a large enough numbers of warheads) to level everything,
this seems fair to me, although perhaps I should use a more precise
term than "area affected".

Let us understand this, fair for nuclear weapons is looking at the
most damaged areas when computing lethality. Fair for conventional
weapons is looking at a much bigger area, where damage is not as
severe in places when computing lethality. Fair also seems to be
assuming multiple larger atomic attacks, presumably also against
unwarned populations.

It is also different to the measure used for Tokyo, since it does not
use dead plus homeless, substituting a 2 km circle instead. It makes
the atomic attacks look more lethal by changing the choice of
measurement. The comparison between the two as reported is
therefore invalid.
The Tokyo raid destroyed 16 square miles, which is the area of a
circle of around 2.25 miles or 3.6 km in radius, what was the death
toll like for the 2 km circle?
As far as I know, there was no concentration of deaths in the Tokyo
raid that would change the ratio if we focused on a smaller area.

Actually there were concentrations of deaths, the canals and rivers
became choked with bodies as people tried to escape the heat,
the incoming tide caused drownings.

It all came down to whether the fires cut off people's retreat, if they
did not more people survived. There was not an even x deaths per
square mile in the "affected area", as a simple exercise in logic
the people at the fringes had a better chance of escaping.

On a comparative scale Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8%, Hiroshima 31%
deaths when you count the dead and homeless as the "affected
population", making the atomic strikes about 4 times as lethal.
Though this ignores the reality Hiroshima was not under air raid alert
at the time but Tokyo was, which could account for much to even all
of the difference in lethality.

I don't think it could account for all of it.

There are precisely two atomic strikes against populations, in both
cases unwarned populations, it is clear moving the population to air
raid shelters would have made a significant difference to lethality.

In theory, assuming Little Boy had a 15,000 ton effectiveness,
Hiroshima works out to 1 death per 375 "pounds", Fat Man at
23,000 tons yield works out to around 1 death per 1,300 "pounds".

That is nearly a factor of 3.5 difference between these two strikes and
3.5 times the 7 to 8% Tokyo lethality is 24 to 28%, in the area of the
claimed atomic weapons lethality.

One of the first things to learn about WWII bombing is how variable
the results could be. It is clear from the atomic attack survivors many
were killed or lethally injured in the open and others were killed when
trapped in damaged/destroyed buildings that burnt. Put the population
in shelters and many/most of these injuries go away.

Hamburg was so lethal partly because the shelters were not designed
to cope with a firestorm, normally the best thing to do was head for the
shelters, on this night it would have been flee the area even as the
raid began. The Hamburg raid killed people at a rate 34 times the
average per ton of bombs dropped on Germany. And you want to
think a factor of 4 is somehow large between Tokyo and Hiroshima,
and that is after altering the definitions in favour of the atomic attack.

If the Oxford companion to WWII is correct air raids on Austria were
3 times as lethal per ton of bombs dropped on average than those
on Germany.

Are there *any* instances of conventional weapons ever killing more
than 8% (either of the "area affected" or the "area leveled")?

Yes night of 23/24 February 1945 RAF Bomber Command versus
Pforzheim. The city, pre war population of 80,000, had been the
target of Mosquito harassment raids by night plus some day strikes
in the order of 100 to 300 tons of bombs before the big raid. On
23/34 February 1945 some 1,740 tons of bombs caused a firestorm,
around 17,000 to 18,000 people killed on this night. This raid was
responsible for most of the damage to the city during hostilities.
Some 83% of the built up area destroyed for the war. In terms
of deaths per bomb it works out to a maximum of 1 death per 190
pounds of bombs, around 2/3 the lethality of the Hamburg firestorm.

Assuming no growth in population the Pforzheim raid's lethality works
out at 21 to 23% of the total population, but around 20% of the city
survived, so 5/4 times 21 to 22 is 26 to 28%.

This ignores the problems in determining a good population figure for
the city, let alone a subset of districts, given the attacks by definition
would destroy some of the records needed to determine the population
present.

Simply given the reality there are only two atomic strikes to go on
and their lethality per "ton" of bomb varied so much and they were
against unwarned populations, and the variability seen in WWII
conventional bombing means claims about how much more lethal
atomic weapons can be do not have solid evidence to back them.
Hopefully it stays this way. As I said before I would expect a higher
lethality for nuclear weapons thanks to the instantaneous nature of
much of the damage and the much higher "explosive" yield, how
much higher is another question.

The only comparable strikes to the atomic weapons in "explosive"
yield were the RAF Bomber Command strikes against Duisberg on
14 October 1944 by day and again that night, the two operations
put around 10,000 short tons of bombs on the city, about 5,000
tons each, around 16% incendiaries. No idea of casualties, the
city did not put together a final report but there were clearly not
Hamburg etc. casualty levels.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server.

hiroshima facts wrote in message
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
. ..
hiroshima facts wrote in message
I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on
"Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson
in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84,
they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed.
And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area"
for the estimate I was quoting.
In which case the affected area being defined as significantly less than
the area of blast and fire damage. There were deaths and damage
beyond the 2 km/6,600 feet radius.

I'm guessing the estimate tried to pick the area where most of the
buildings were leveled, and came up with 2 KM. Since a modern nuclear
attack that wanted to level a city would use either large enough
warheads (or a large enough numbers of warheads) to level everything,
this seems fair to me, although perhaps I should use a more precise
term than "area affected".

Let us understand this, fair for nuclear weapons is looking at the
most damaged areas when computing lethality. Fair for conventional
weapons is looking at a much bigger area, where damage is not as
severe in places when computing lethality.

I think the comparison was using the area where most buildings were
razed to the ground in each case.

There are zones of far more intense damage with nukes, such as the
zone exposed to at least a 20 PSI overpressure.




Fair also seems to be assuming multiple larger atomic attacks,

Since a modern nuclear attack would use enough nukes to achieve
whatever level of damage was desired, I don't see why it isn't fair to
consider that.

I also think it would also be fair to count any intensity/numbers of
conventional bombs that are within the limits of practicality for
delivering the attack.

But I think with conventional bombs there will always be a large
number who will be able to successfully flee the firestorm before it
takes hold, no matter how intense the bombing.




presumably also against unwarned populations.

I think it is reasonable to account for that. I just don't think it
accounts for *all* the difference. Also, given that a nuclear strike
can hit with very little warning, there might not be much time for a
population to prepare.

The two things that strike me as being unique about nukes is that they
can take out an large area rapidly, giving no time to flee once the
attack starts, and the prompt radiation kills people in the areas of
heavier damage who might otherwise survive the blast.




It is also different to the measure used for Tokyo, since it does not
use dead plus homeless, substituting a 2 km circle instead. It makes
the atomic attacks look more lethal by changing the choice of
measurement. The comparison between the two as reported is
therefore invalid.
The Tokyo raid destroyed 16 square miles, which is the area of a
circle of around 2.25 miles or 3.6 km in radius, what was the death
toll like for the 2 km circle?
As far as I know, there was no concentration of deaths in the Tokyo
raid that would change the ratio if we focused on a smaller area.

Actually there were concentrations of deaths, the canals and rivers
became choked with bodies as people tried to escape the heat,
the incoming tide caused drownings.

But that is due to the geography of the target, not the nature of the
bomb. And the people only ended up in that concentration because they
ran there once the bombing started.




It all came down to whether the fires cut off people's retreat, if they
did not more people survived. There was not an even x deaths per
square mile in the "affected area", as a simple exercise in logic
the people at the fringes had a better chance of escaping.

I think it would be fair to trim off the fringe areas and count the
casualty rate in the core area.




Are there *any* instances of conventional weapons ever killing more
than 8% (either of the "area affected" or the "area leveled")?

Yes night of 23/24 February 1945 RAF Bomber Command versus
Pforzheim. The city, pre war population of 80,000, had been the
target of Mosquito harassment raids by night plus some day strikes
in the order of 100 to 300 tons of bombs before the big raid. On
23/34 February 1945 some 1,740 tons of bombs caused a firestorm,
around 17,000 to 18,000 people killed on this night. This raid was
responsible for most of the damage to the city during hostilities.
Some 83% of the built up area destroyed for the war. In terms
of deaths per bomb it works out to a maximum of 1 death per 190
pounds of bombs, around 2/3 the lethality of the Hamburg firestorm.

Assuming no growth in population the Pforzheim raid's lethality works
out at 21 to 23% of the total population, but around 20% of the city
survived, so 5/4 times 21 to 22 is 26 to 28%.

Thanks. I didn't know their proportion got so high.




Simply given the reality there are only two atomic strikes to go on
and their lethality per "ton" of bomb varied so much and they were
against unwarned populations, and the variability seen in WWII
conventional bombing means claims about how much more lethal
atomic weapons can be do not have solid evidence to back them.
Hopefully it stays this way. As I said before I would expect a higher
lethality for nuclear weapons thanks to the instantaneous nature of
much of the damage and the much higher "explosive" yield, how
much higher is another question.

I don't see what lethality per ton has to do with it.

No matter how much conventional explosive is dropped on a city, a lot
of people are still going to be able to flee the raid once it starts.
This is something that nukes can overcome.

hiroshima facts wrote in message .. .
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server.

hiroshima facts wrote in message
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
. ..
hiroshima facts wrote in message
I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on
"Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson
in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84,
they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed.
And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area"
for the estimate I was quoting.
In which case the affected area being defined as significantly less than
the area of blast and fire damage. There were deaths and damage
beyond the 2 km/6,600 feet radius.

I'm guessing the estimate tried to pick the area where most of the
buildings were leveled, and came up with 2 KM. Since a modern nuclear
attack that wanted to level a city would use either large enough
warheads (or a large enough numbers of warheads) to level everything,
this seems fair to me, although perhaps I should use a more precise
term than "area affected".

Let us understand this, fair for nuclear weapons is looking at the
most damaged areas when computing lethality. Fair for conventional
weapons is looking at a much bigger area, where damage is not as
severe in places when computing lethality.

I think the comparison was using the area where most buildings were
razed to the ground in each case.

I suggest you go look up the various damage levels involved in the
different attacks instead of telling us you are "facts" when you are
supplying "thoughts". Someone decided to use 2km as the radius
to measure the lethality for the nuclear strikes but a much larger
area for the conventional strikes, skewing the results.

There are zones of far more intense damage with nukes, such as the
zone exposed to at least a 20 PSI overpressure.

Ever seen the pictures of ground zero for a 4,000 pound HE bomb,
the RAF heavy bomber standard weapon in 1944/45?

Fair also seems to be assuming multiple larger atomic attacks,

Since a modern nuclear attack would use enough nukes to achieve
whatever level of damage was desired, I don't see why it isn't fair to
consider that.

Let us understand this, it is "fair" to compare lethality of conventional
and nuclear attacks from WWII by assuming the nuclear attacks are
multiple, modern attacks. It looks like the biggest conventional raid
in WWII was around 1/3 the size of the smallest nuclear weapon used
in terms of explosive power. So now we compare delivering what,
10 to 100 times more explosive power and announce hey the bigger
strike is more lethal.

Congratulations.

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 also think it would also be fair to count any intensity/numbers of
conventional bombs that are within the limits of practicality for
delivering the attack.


The limit on conventional delivery of explosives is aircraft over
target, the Lancaster delivered around 10,000 pounds of
bombs, put a modern bomber on the job and the number goes
up by a factor of 4 or so. Or simply switch to a combination
of conventional bombing and missile strikes to increase the
explosive delivery rate.

Just as the WWII limitations on nuclear strikes have gone
away, keep the bomb small enough for the aircraft to survive,
the limitations on delivering conventional bombs have been
significantly reduced.

But I think with conventional bombs there will always be a large
number who will be able to successfully flee the firestorm before it
takes hold, no matter how intense the bombing.

Hamburg was so lethal because of the firestorm killing people
in otherwise safe shelters. Normally the best thing to do in an
air raid is get into a shelter. Large numbers of people running
away on the surface are going to be killed by blast, stampedes,
vehicle collisions and so on.

presumably also against unwarned populations.

I think it is reasonable to account for that. I just don't think it
accounts for *all* the difference. Also, given that a nuclear strike
can hit with very little warning, there might not be much time for a
population to prepare.

Now what are we comparing? WWII conventional air raids to
ICBMs? The IJN strike on Pearl Harbor used around 0.1 to 0.15
kt of bombs, killed 2,400 people. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima
was around 100 times more powerful, it should have killed 240,000
people at this level of lethality. Take away the people killed on the
Arizona and you still end up with the Hiroshima bomb needing to
kill around 120,000 for equivalent lethality.

Try to understand the results of air raids in WWII varied dramatically,
using 2 attacks to generalise the effects is an exercise in selective
quotation, not facts.

The two things that strike me as being unique about nukes is that they
can take out an large area rapidly, giving no time to flee once the
attack starts, and the prompt radiation kills people in the areas of
heavier damage who might otherwise survive the blast.

Again this assumes people are unprotected and ignores the fact
fleeing during an attack is likely to raise the number of dead. The
protection from blast gives good protection from radiation.

A machine gun can kill thousands of people per hour if they have
no protection.

It is also different to the measure used for Tokyo, since it does not
use dead plus homeless, substituting a 2 km circle instead. It makes
the atomic attacks look more lethal by changing the choice of
measurement. The comparison between the two as reported is
therefore invalid.
The Tokyo raid destroyed 16 square miles, which is the area of a
circle of around 2.25 miles or 3.6 km in radius, what was the death
toll like for the 2 km circle?
As far as I know, there was no concentration of deaths in the Tokyo
raid that would change the ratio if we focused on a smaller area.

Actually there were concentrations of deaths, the canals and rivers
became choked with bodies as people tried to escape the heat,
the incoming tide caused drownings.

But that is due to the geography of the target, not the nature of the
bomb. And the people only ended up in that concentration because they
ran there once the bombing started.

They ended up in the canals because the fires cut off retreat. The
districts that were cut off by fire had the higher death rates.


It all came down to whether the fires cut off people's retreat, if they
did not more people survived. There was not an even x deaths per
square mile in the "affected area", as a simple exercise in logic
the people at the fringes had a better chance of escaping.

I think it would be fair to trim off the fringe areas and count the
casualty rate in the core area.

Now we have "core area" to go with "area affected". Understand
there are plenty of raids in WWII that killed more people than the
atomic strikes per ton of explosive dropped. Even in terms of
absolute numbers killed Hiroshima comes in at 1 or 2 with Tokyo,
Nagasaki at 4 behind Hamburg at 3, Dresden at 5.

Are there *any* instances of conventional weapons ever killing more
than 8% (either of the "area affected" or the "area leveled")?

Yes night of 23/24 February 1945 RAF Bomber Command versus
Pforzheim. The city, pre war population of 80,000, had been the
target of Mosquito harassment raids by night plus some day strikes
in the order of 100 to 300 tons of bombs before the big raid. On
23/34 February 1945 some 1,740 tons of bombs caused a firestorm,
around 17,000 to 18,000 people killed on this night. This raid was
responsible for most of the damage to the city during hostilities.
Some 83% of the built up area destroyed for the war. In terms
of deaths per bomb it works out to a maximum of 1 death per 190
pounds of bombs, around 2/3 the lethality of the Hamburg firestorm.

Assuming no growth in population the Pforzheim raid's lethality works
out at 21 to 23% of the total population, but around 20% of the city
survived, so 5/4 times 21 to 22 is 26 to 28%.

Thanks. I didn't know their proportion got so high.

I presume though this has no effect on the claims about the relative
lethalities of nuclear and conventional attacks.

Simply given the reality there are only two atomic strikes to go on
and their lethality per "ton" of bomb varied so much and they were
against unwarned populations, and the variability seen in WWII
conventional bombing means claims about how much more lethal
atomic weapons can be do not have solid evidence to back them.
Hopefully it stays this way. As I said before I would expect a higher
lethality for nuclear weapons thanks to the instantaneous nature of
much of the damage and the much higher "explosive" yield, how
much higher is another question.

I don't see what lethality per ton has to do with it.

It has everything to do with it if you want to compare conventional
and nuclear attack lethalities, otherwise why not simply compare
the lethality of say 2 Zeppelins in WWI and 100 Lancasters in WWII.
No guess as to which one kills more people.

No matter how much conventional explosive is dropped on a city, a lot
of people are still going to be able to flee the raid once it starts.
This is something that nukes can overcome.

Sigh, to minimise casualties move people before or after the raid,
not during it, keep shelters away from flammable areas, keep the
people in the shelters during the raid. Movement during a raid is
obscured by smoke and dust and exposes people to shrapnel,
blast, stampedes and rapidly changing conditions, the "bridge" to
safety being hit for example, the confusion as landmarks are
destroyed or obscured.

In WWII the lethality of conventional attacks varied widely, starting
large fires was the usual way of killing large numbers of people,
incendiary bombs were the best way to start fires. The WWII
nuclear attacks were at least 3 times more powerful in explosive
terms than the biggest conventional raid, but the biggest conventional
raid was not the most lethal, in either absolute terms or deaths per ton
of bombs used.

So far instead of supplying facts you are supplying opinions and
showing a great lack of knowledge about the results of conventional
air raids. Then you bias the definitions to make the nuclear attacks
look more dangerous.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

I suggest you go look up the various damage levels involved in the
different attacks instead of telling us you are "facts" when you are
supplying "thoughts". Someone decided to use 2km as the radius
to measure the lethality for the nuclear strikes but a much larger
area for the conventional strikes, skewing the results.


OK, here is my version, based on damage levels:

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 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.

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.


I expect that no conventional weapons attack, from any era you choose,
could achieve that level of casualties.




Fair also seems to be assuming multiple larger atomic attacks,

Since a modern nuclear attack would use enough nukes to achieve
whatever level of damage was desired, I don't see why it isn't fair to
consider that.

Let us understand this, it is "fair" to compare lethality of conventional
and nuclear attacks from WWII by assuming the nuclear attacks are
multiple, modern attacks. It looks like the biggest conventional raid
in WWII was around 1/3 the size of the smallest nuclear weapon used
in terms of explosive power. So now we compare delivering what,
10 to 100 times more explosive power and announce hey the bigger
strike is more lethal.

Congratulations.

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.

You seem to be simultaneously acknowledging this fact and taking issue
with me for also stating it.




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.

It would also be possible to combine bioweapons with conventional
weapons, and get the casualty levels and property destruction that a
nuke would produce.




presumably also against unwarned populations.

I think it is reasonable to account for that. I just don't think it
accounts for *all* the difference. Also, given that a nuclear strike
can hit with very little warning, there might not be much time for a
population to prepare.

Now what are we comparing? WWII conventional air raids to
ICBMs?

I think nukes have more potential to spring a sudden attack on a
population than conventional weapons do, at any level of technology.

This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server

hiroshima facts wrote in message . ..
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

I suggest you go look up the various damage levels involved in the
different attacks instead of telling us you are "facts" when you are
supplying "thoughts". Someone decided to use 2km as the radius
to measure the lethality for the nuclear strikes but a much larger
area for the conventional strikes, skewing the results.

OK, here is my version,

No this is not a version, this is a change of subject, from the fact
the definitions were changed when comparing the lethality of
WWII nuclear and conventional attacks.

based on damage levels:

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. 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.

Direct hits presumably mean ground bursts?

Why not parachute commandos in with machine guns and line
up the population and just shoot them? It seems as realistic.

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.

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. 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?

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. 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 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.

Fair also seems to be assuming multiple larger atomic attacks,

Since a modern nuclear attack would use enough nukes to achieve
whatever level of damage was desired, I don't see why it isn't fair to
consider that.

Let us understand this, it is "fair" to compare lethality of conventional
and nuclear attacks from WWII by assuming the nuclear attacks are
multiple, modern attacks. It looks like the biggest conventional raid
in WWII was around 1/3 the size of the smallest nuclear weapon used
in terms of explosive power. So now we compare delivering what,
10 to 100 times more explosive power and announce hey the bigger
strike is more lethal.

Congratulations.

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.

You seem to be simultaneously acknowledging this fact and taking issue
with me for also stating it.

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".

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.

It would also be possible to combine bioweapons with conventional
weapons, and get the casualty levels and property destruction that a
nuke would produce.

It is also possible to achieve, with conventional weapons, the sorts of
lethalities that were seen in the nuclear attacks. It was also quite
possible to have minimal loss of life in a major conventional attack.
These are the results of thousands of WWII bombing raids. Trying
to selectively choose results and definitions to make the 2 nuclear
attacks look more lethal is foolish, after all in absolute terms
Nagasaki was around 1/2 the casualties, and in explosive terms
around 2/7 the casualties. Those figures alone should give pause
to the creation of wonder nuclear strikes.

deleted bits, to the next

The limit on conventional delivery of explosives is aircraft over
target, the Lancaster delivered around 10,000 pounds of
bombs, put a modern bomber on the job and the number goes
up by a factor of 4 or so. Or simply switch to a combination
of conventional bombing and missile strikes to increase the
explosive delivery rate.

Just as the WWII limitations on nuclear strikes have gone
away, keep the bomb small enough for the aircraft to survive,
the limitations on delivering conventional bombs have been
significantly reduced.

Hamburg was so lethal because of the firestorm killing people
in otherwise safe shelters. Normally the best thing to do in an
air raid is get into a shelter. Large numbers of people running
away on the surface are going to be killed by blast, stampedes,
vehicle collisions and so on.

presumably also against unwarned populations.

I think it is reasonable to account for that. I just don't think it
accounts for *all* the difference. Also, given that a nuclear strike
can hit with very little warning, there might not be much time for a
population to prepare.

Now what are we comparing? WWII conventional air raids to
ICBMs?

deleted text, to the next

"The IJN strike on Pearl Harbor used around 0.1 to 0.15
kt of bombs, killed 2,400 people. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima
was around 100 times more powerful, it should have killed 240,000
people at this level of lethality. Take away the people killed on the
Arizona and you still end up with the Hiroshima bomb needing to
kill around 120,000 for equivalent lethality.

Try to understand the results of air raids in WWII varied dramatically,
using 2 attacks to generalise the effects is an exercise in selective
quotation, not facts."

I think nukes have more potential to spring a sudden attack on a
population than conventional weapons do, at any level of technology.

I would have thought the sudden attack ability comes down to the
delivery system, aircraft, ICBM, shipping container, truck, and the
warning system in place to detect the approaching delivery system.
There are clear examples from WWII of populations ignoring
warnings until it was too late because the bombers had previously
always attacked somewhere else.

The rest of the post is simply deleted text,

Again this assumes people are unprotected and ignores the fact
fleeing during an attack is likely to raise the number of dead. The
protection from blast gives good protection from radiation.

A machine gun can kill thousands of people per hour if they have
no protection.

Now we have "core area" to go with "area affected". Understand
there are plenty of raids in WWII that killed more people than the
atomic strikes per ton of explosive dropped. Even in terms of
absolute numbers killed Hiroshima comes in at 1 or 2 with Tokyo,
Nagasaki at 4 behind Hamburg at 3, Dresden at 5.

It has everything to do with it if you want to compare conventional
and nuclear attack lethalities, otherwise why not simply compare
the lethality of say 2 Zeppelins in WWI and 100 Lancasters in WWII.
No guess as to which one kills more people.

Sigh, to minimise casualties move people before or after the raid,
not during it, keep shelters away from flammable areas, keep the
people in the shelters during the raid. Movement during a raid is
obscured by smoke and dust and exposes people to shrapnel,
blast, stampedes and rapidly changing conditions, the "bridge" to
safety being hit for example, the confusion as landmarks are
destroyed or obscured.

In WWII the lethality of conventional attacks varied widely, starting
large fires was the usual way of killing large numbers of people,
incendiary bombs were the best way to start fires. The WWII
nuclear attacks were at least 3 times more powerful in explosive
terms than the biggest conventional raid, but the biggest conventional
raid was not the most lethal, in either absolute terms or deaths per ton
of bombs used.

So far instead of supplying facts you are supplying opinions and
showing a great lack of knowledge about the results of conventional
air raids. Then you bias the definitions to make the nuclear attacks
look more dangerous.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:43:00 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:


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.


Quite, with AIR plans for 1000 odd Avro Lincolns coming to the party.

ISTR also talk of making them inflight refuelable.



greg

--
Cast in the name of God. Ye not guilty.

"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?

In article ,
(hiroshima facts) wrote:

"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 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.



Before assuming that you can salvo nuclear weapons, or drop them in
formation, read up a bit on the "dense pack" model of ICBM basing. Also
consider the winds after the first burst.