Only 70k?
Wrong again, do your home work, Ted.
It was 140k, that is a success!
You really don't know very much and what you do know is usually a distortion. A range of numbers has always been given when explaining how many died at Hiroshima. However, the exact number is not what's most important but rather the catastrophic effect the atomic bomb has on humans.
Its not surprising that a neocon misses that import since number of deaths seems to be a popular way for you to measure success or failure. No wonder Iraq seems like such a great success to you all. However, the neocon doesn't realize how grotesque his measurement of success really is [probably due to a bad case of sociopathy]. Like a Dahmer or a Duncan, they are to be pitied once they are removed from a position that puts the rest of us in danger.
"The Manhattan Engineer District survey
In 1946, the Manhattan Engineer District published a study that concluded that 66,000 people were killed at Hiroshima out of a population of 255,000. Of that number, 45,000 died on the first day and 19,000 during the next four months. In addition, "several hundred" survivors were expected to die from radiation-induced cancers and lukemia over the next 30 years. (This report is also known as the Oughterson Commission study.) This is the low-ball estimate, evidently because it was based on a census of households in Hiroshima and therefore did not account for the deaths of soldiers and Korean forced laborers, who are generally numbered at 20,000--though I can't find any solid justification for that figure. If they all died, which is very unlikely, and if we add a thousand deaths instead of the several hundred estimated by Oughterson's group, then we seem to be talking 87,000 fatalities directly attributable to the explosion. "
warbirdforum.com |
