Amazon.com Widgets

Which is worse, the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

Asked by: Caine_M_L_Green
  • Bombings Still Win

    I hate to break it to the Americans, but the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far worse than the attacks of 9/11. The bombings killed far more people and ruined the health of many more, making the death tolls unknowable. America was unjustified in these bombings and I personally find them to be much worse.

  • Let's face it

    The USA was inhumane to Japan in a f--ked up way. The bomb was not for any civil purposes, it was to show USA strength. Those damn Vikings. The bombs were done in order to scare the USSR into staying away. 9/11 was small in comparison to the bomb that was dropped

  • The bombings were worst then the 9/11 attack.

    It is widely believed that the bombings were to stop the war but guess what? The bombs were never tested (inhumane of the US) and many believe the bombings was more a way for the US to show their military might then to stop the war. The attack on 9/11 had a clear purpose-- to send a message to the US to stop interfering in Middle-East affairs while the purpose of the bombings aren't as clear.

  • The nuclear bombings were worse.

    The bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by far one of the most important events in human history, for better or worse. While they killed scores of innocent civilians, they also effectively stopped a war, saving who knows how many more lives. In all, this means that the event was more important than 9/11.

  • Yes, I think the bombings o fHiroshime and Nagasaki were worse then the 9/11 attacks.

    While the 9/11 attacks were terrible I think the nuclear bomb droppings on Hiroshime and Nagasaki were many multiples worse, the sheer amount of lives lost in the nuclear attacks was a staggering amount and the long term effects from radation and other health complications plagued Japan for decade's after.

  • Atomic bombing is not justified

    Japan was going to surrender. They did not save lives, they killed more than they saved.

    While both were conducted to show the power of the conducting party, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two CITIES, while the 9/11 terrorist attacks were on two buildings.

    While neither is justified, the bombings were worse.

  • It was MUCH more deadly.

    9/11 has NOTHING on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of 1945. The death toll for the Hiroshima bombing was is 90,000-146,000 while the death toll for the Nagasaki was 39,000-80,000. No nuclear weapons were used by the terrorists during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Sure people died, but no one was mutated at all in the slightest. The planes crashing into the Twin Towers became a vine years later where it would show a character throwing something or someone and they would go directly into the Twin Towers, resulting in destruction. The other kind of 9/11 vine would have someone say at the top of their lungs: ALLAHU AKBAR! This would result in more destruction with the famous Allahu Akbar song in the background. The song would play prior to the inevitable destruction that would occur. In conclusion, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings caused many health problems. They also caused millions and millions of Yen in damage's. The only destruction that happened on 9/11 were the Twin Towers, the deaths of 2996 people, and 2977 victims. There were also 19 hijackers. Compare THAT to 90,000-146,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 39,000-80,000 deaths in Nagasaki.

  • Bombings by a narrow margin

    Death toll and the long-term, not well documented at the time impacts outweigh the 9/11 bombings. It is unfair to say that the bombings were just an act of war because they targeted thousands of citizens. The so-called warning was not a real warning and, most importantly, the US did not fully comprehend the impacts of the atomic bomb. Finally, the terrorist attacks were committed by terrorists, while the bombings were committed by a country, which is held to certain moral standards.

  • The bombings were way worse.

    9/11 was horrible, but dropping bombs killed way more. It was kind of justified after Pearl Harbor, but the bombs sent a stronger message. 9/11 killed a lot, and started a war, but I still think that the bombing were worse. Dropping atomic bombs would kill way more than 4 planes.

  • Yes, the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worse.

    As bad as the 9/11 attacks were, the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were way worse. I think that all the incidents were horrible, but there is no way that they can even be compared. The bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite being justifiable, killed a lot of lives and caused more destruction.

  • The Motivation or the Impact?

    What was the meaning behind the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? These bombs were dropped, contrary to popular belief, to save lives. The casualties expected if the bombs were not dropped exceeded 50,000 for the Americans and many times more for the Japanese. The final death toll as a result of the bombings was about 135,000. This is an incredible loss of life; I do not wish to undermine that. I would, however, like to stress the fact that had these bombs not been dropped, many, many more lives would have been lost. The Japanese were given multiple warnings, and still refused to surrender. Even after the first bomb, they refused to give in. Japan was a formidable foe for the US and an honorable country. The result of the war was tragic, but the decision to drop the bombs was not a decision driven by hate or cruelty.

    9/11, however, was an act of terrorism. Given no warning, the US was attacked. This was a hate-fueled attack, and while the death toll was ultimately under 3,000, the intent sets this tragic event apart from the bombings.

    The impact of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the casualties greatly outweigh that of 9/11, but the motivation behind that attack can be considered "worse", for lack of better words.

    Now onto the aftermath of 9/11. If we are to include the US response to the plane hijacking to the equation, this changes the story. 15,000 died in the bombing of Afghanistan. 500,000 have died in the Iraq war, the "war on terror". America believed it was justified in committing its own acts of terrorism after 9/11, but in doing so, we as a country ended countless lives. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be found. Without clear basis, we attacked civilians who had no connection to the group that terrorized our country.

    Were we justified in bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
    Were the hijackers justified in attacking our country
    Were we justified in attacking them?
    As people of this world, we are in a constant state of war. If the aggressors lose, they are called terrorists. If they succeed, they are praised as heroes. Who is to say that America had the right to take any of these matters into its own hands? We can justify ourselves all we want, and those we call terrorists will do the same. With this mind frame, can we as people ever come to an understanding? Who can say which is worse? What crime is the most unforgivable? If we continue to point fingers, we are no better than those that terrorize us. But I digress.
    In the end, it is hard to say which is "worse". I would, however, like to thank anyone who has decided to hear me out.
    So thank you.

  • 9/11 by far.

    Even though I do think I was alive for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, I was in middle school when the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place, and I feel those were much worse. I imagine more people were killed/injured, and there was a lot more damage down. Mentally and physically.

  • No 9/11 was worse

    There was a purpose behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was to prevent the war in Japan from dragging on and costing millions of lives on both sides. This is not to say the bombings weren't horrific. Just that they were the lesser of two evils. The attack on 9/11 was entirely to kill American civilians.

  • Motivation for the decision.

    We did it because Japan refused to stop a war, here were the alternatives and why they'd fail.
    1) Pack up and go home. The Japanese would have continued rampaging through Asia, squeezing their resources, and killing off millions of innocent people in these areas via raping, torturing, stabbing, and other violent methods for years. Pearl Harbor would have occurred again. Not an option, the Japanese not only had to be stopped, but to prevent them from waging a war of aggression again.
    2) Blockade. Obviously, it's not humane. Blockading would starve the entire country of women and children to death, and has been going on since April 1945, along with the U.S. firebombing raids and interdiction campaigns that targeted entire cities and transportation system. The Japanese leaders wouldn't be persuaded and would continue the fight. They were considered fierceless and had no fear of death. They obviously didn't care about starving to death.
    3) Firebombing: Firebombing raids have far killed more civilians and would have continued to do so without the sheer demonstration of what atomic power can do.
    4) Demonstration bomb. This has been asked like most anti-Americans which demonstrates the fact they had no interest of learning or showing tons of ignorance whatsoever. We only had two bombs at the time. The Japanese would not be simply be intimidated if we drop the two only available bombs on a non-populated area. That's like asking why didn't Japanese demonstrate their airpower to the Americans at Pearl Harbor instead of destroying a lot of things and killing thousands of people there. Since the Japanese instead purposely bombed Pearl Harbor filled with neutral citizens instead of enemy combatants, there is no good reason why the Japanese should be intimidated by two of the only available atomic bombs on non-populated areas. Hell, the Japanese immediately knew of the atomic bomb when Hiroshima hit the news. This was war, and in war, you destroy the enemy's ability to fight.
    5) Operation Downfall: Based on the Okinawan campaign, Operation Downfall would have taken years and years and killed millions of American and Japanese citizens, most of them civilians. In addition to the invasion campaign, the fighting and war crimes elsewhere would have continued by the Japanese. The U.S. in fact planned to use atomic bombs as tactical support without the realization of the radiation effects it would cause. So not only Japanese would have died, it would also affect Americans and thus affecting and killing them in the long run as well. The years of fighting would also lead to the complete destruction of the Japanese culture and it would be as likely that the Soviets would take advantage while we were still fighting in Japan and split the country like they did to Germany and Korea.

    I find no reason care if more people died of the A bombs than 9/11. 9/11 did nothing to achieve similar aims. It was done out of spite.

  • They don't belong in the same category

    There is a difference between a terrorist attack and an act of war. Holding the atomic bombing of Japan in the same reference is a mistake. Japan was part of a group of nations that were known to us as the Axis of Evil having a pact with Hitler's Nazi Germany, both of which at the time were developing there own atomic bombs. The event was called World War 2, in which 60 million people lost their lives. Japan and Nazi Germany yielded tremendous military strength along with forms of government that held the rest of the world as inferior in every way, seeking to destroy the people and their ways of life.

    Nearly every country on the face of the earth that was not part of the axis of evil were needed to stop this fierce and overpowering military machine that was Japan and Germany. It required the formation of several other powerful military machines to stop them.

    I'm afraid you also have your numbers wrong on the dead caused by the atomic bombs, times it by two would be closer. Which is only a small percentage of the B29 bombing raids that took place for the 15 months or so prior to Hiroshima on every single Japanese city there was.

    Which is worse? In number of lives lost, World War 2 along with the thousands of stories of atrocities by both Japan and Germany and the millions of dead.

    Which is worse? A terrorist attack on a Nation and a people at peace, using our own commercial non military airplanes against us, all of whom had no idea why.

    Just for pity's sake, actually read the story of the Bataan Death March and the Bombing of Pearl Harbor. Why it really wasn't such a great thrill for the marines to raise that flag at Iwo Jima.

  • The Japan Bombings were worse, no comparision.

    No side deserved what they got because both had innocent lives and didnt know what was happening. The atomic bomb may have had a warning before the nagasaki attacks thet there was going to ba another attack but the US didnt tell them what city it was so the warning was useless. The problem that people here face is that they think that the scale of the two attacks was the same. The 9/11 attacks killed about 3,000 were killed but in the Japan bombing combined about (135,000 Hiroshima + 50,000 Nagaskai) 185,000 were killed (instantaly and because of radiation). Simply put there is no comparision.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.