> "it was my considered opinion, i told correspondents in tokyo, that the effects of the atom bombs -- not of future bombs, but these two - had been wildly exaggerated. if dropped on new york or chicago, one of those bombs would have done no more damage than a ten-ton blockbuster; and the results in hiroshima and nagasaki could be achieved by about 200 b-29's loaded with incendiaries, except that fewer japanese would have been killed. i did not "underrate" atom bombs or their future potential. i merely conveyed my professional findings on the physical results of the two bombs - and they happened to be in startling contrast to the hysterical imaginative versions spread throughout the world. > my findings were pounced upon an outraged anger by all sorts of people, and the press, on the air, at public forums; and by scientists who haven't been within 5,000 mi of hiroshima. but the violence of this reaction cannot alter the facts on view and the two japanese cities. > i began my study of japan by flying over yokohama, nagoya, osaka, kobe, and dozens of other places. later i visited them all on foot. > all presented the same pattern. the bombed areas looked pinkish - an affect produced by the piles of ashes and rubble mixed with rusted metal. modern buildings and factories still stood. that many of the buildings were gutted by fire was not apparent from the air. the center of yokohama, for instance, seemed almost intact and viewed from an airplane. the long industrial belt stretching from osaka to kobe had been laid waste by fire, but the factories and other concrete structures were still standing. on the whole it was a picture quite different from what i had seen in german cities subjected to demolition bombardment. the difference laying the fact that japanese destruction was overwhelmingly incendiary, with comparatively little structural damage to inflammable targets.
United States