Hmmm, your maths is a bit out.
-Taking the average death toll from the 2 WWII bombs as 110,000 (going on your figures) per bomb
-Assuming a modern nuclear war will use modern nuclear warheads rather than 60 year old atom bombs which will give an approx 160 KTon yield as opposed to Nagasaki's 20 - 22KTon yield
-Bearing in mind an actual war will involve the targeting of approx 30 - 40 targets in the UK alone...........
Then your looking at a (simplistic but fair) death toll of approx. 3.8 million or just over half the UK population.
Assuming any war will involve attacks on more than one country, and taking into account collateral deaths through radiation exposure, lack of resources etc. then I'd say yes - saying swine flu could be more deadly than nuclear war is scare mongering.
Seriously - more people have dies in the past year through allergic reactions to prescription drugs than have dies from swine flu - where's the ibuprofen vaccine? okenest:
And of course you have not quite grasped what I said, we have not had any deaths from Nuclear war since 1945, in fact we have not had a nuclear war at all, so if there was just one death from swine flu it is one more than from a nuclear war.
You are looking at the results if there had been or was a nuclear war, we have not had one, so you are basing your outlook on if and buts, rather than the facts of no nuclear war, no casualties.