> Over 55 cities were deemed to be "severely damaged" by  post-war US
> estimates.


I was pushing my point a bit hard. Most major cities were very
damaged, but only Tokyo and hiroshima and nagasaki are what I would
call "burned down" I'll post some statistics, my current source:  
Here are japan's most heavily damaged cities:


City      percent devastated
Kobe        8.8
Nagoya      12.4
osaka       15.6
Tokyo       56.3
Yokohama    9.9


I think hiroshima and nagasaki had 50 and 33 percent respectively.

Damage to other major cities was either  marginal or non-existant.




Heavy as the damage was, only 3 cities could be said to have been
"burned down" in my opinion.  Also note that Kanazawa, Kyoto,
Kamukara, Nara and other cities of "culture" were spared.  We were
trying to destroy japanese industry, not culture.

  the reason japanese cities are lacking in cultural artifacts is
because japanese consider things asian in origin to be inferior, and
shamelessly destroyed all of them.  Every temple was changed to a
church, every katana recurved in to a saber and every japanese
bathhouse turned in to a swedish one and every kimono and yukata
redyed in to an english robe.  Also, I dont think the american bombers
liked tokyo-japs.



> Hardly worth mentioning, are they?


Well, I didnt know if you meant just fire-bombing