Which is the worst atrocity: 9/11 attack or Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14842519
Based on the numbers, it would appear that far more people physically suffered from the atomic bombings than from the 9/11 attacks.

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians.

The numbers are staggering, considering this is a man made infliction. On the day of the actual blast, most people burned to death, which is a horrible way to die. On 9/11, at least 200 people jumped from the building, from what we presume to be avoiding the intense heat from the fires that were roaring inside. The people who died from burns during the atomic bombings did not even have the option to jump. Secondly, look at the number of people who died from falling debris. Again, this indicates that not every civilian died instantaneously, but indeed may have endured some sort of physical suffering before they perished. Finally, the number of people that died from radiation or other injuries over the following months is also staggering. These people endured physical hardships for several weeks before they finally perished.

In addition, both evens had physical and psychological reperucussions that lasted long after the initial incident. An entire generation of Japanese civilians had been exposed to nuclear radiation, and would deal with the consequences for decades. In addition, two entire cities were flattened in a matter of seconds. The damage on 9/11 was contained to a relatively contained area of NYC. Most of the city still stood after the attack. Psychologically, I am in no case to judge, but I would venture to guess that the psychological damage caused by the detonation of two nuclear bombs on a country and the death of almost 250,000 civilians would certainly be greater than the psychological effects of the deaths of 3000 civilians.


https://www.quora.com/Which-is-a-worse- ... a-Nagasaki
#14842521
I would not compare these events 9/11 was a sneaky attack by Arab religious fanatics out of nothing more than spite. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while horrific, were totally avoidable if the Japanese, who started the war, had admitted it was over and taken the official warnings. Here is the sequence. If anyone can spin it so the Americans were the bad guys, you wasting your time trying to talk reason to them. Trouble is Americans always forgive their enemies. Many of us here in Australia think Hirohito should have been hung. We don't forget the Burma Railway, and the death marches.

End of WW2.
1944: Imperial Japanese government begins to put out vague queries for an armistice to give their industry time to rearm. No discussion of surrender.

May 8 1945: Last remnant of Nazi military surrender unconditionally. Japan remains the last Axis power.

July: Intense air raids and naval bombardment of Japan show invasion is imminent. Japanese military calls up all males 17 to 60 and females 17 to 45 for militia. Approximately 10,000 varied aircraft are prepared for suicide defence. Adults and children are trained as suicide bombers to wear explosive vests.

July 16: Trinity A-bomb successfully tested in the USA.

July 26: Potsdam Declaration demands immediate unconditional surrender of Imperial Japanese Forces, “or face prompt and utter destruction.”

August 1: OWI leaflet #2106 is dropped over target cities in Japan including Hiroshima and Nagasaki warning to evacuate before bombing begins. On the same day Emperor Hirohito gives the order to kill all 40,000 slave labour Allied prisoners if the Americans land on Japanese soil. At the time these slaves were being starved to death anyway.

August 6: Hiroshima uranium-bomb detonation.

August 7: Japanese physicists examine the ruins of Hiroshima and informs the Chief of Staff that it is the result of a nuclear weapon. Naval Chief of Staff Toyoda calculates that the USA can only have built two or three bombs and that while it means great loss of life, there is no reason to halt the war.
Prime Minister Suzuki tells Japanese press the government will ignore Allied demand for surrender.

August 9: Nagasaki plutonium-bomb detonation.
Minister of War tells Hirohito he did not feel the A-bombs made surrender necessary. Saner ministers convince the Emperor to surrender. PM Suzuki is prepared to carry out Imperial instructions.

August 14: Ministry of War and officers of the Imperial Guard attempt to overthrow the government and prevent surrender. The coup fails. Attempted assignation of Suzuki fails.

August 15: Hirohito’s recorded announcement of cease fire is broadcast over Japanese radio. There is no mention surrender in the communique.
#14842523
If we are going to measure "atrociousness" like this than neither is the most devastating. Regular bombing campaigns in WW2 killed more people than the atoms bomb, and every estimate of a direct invasion of Japan was so high that the atomic bombs look like pin pricks.

9/11 was bad. War is bad. Famine is bad. Genocide is bad.

We are in a world where bad things abound.
#14842526
Did the towers really drop though? Did they ever even exist in the first place? It is amazing what special effects guys can do these days. The old mistakes (flags blowing in the wind on the moon) are long gone. There is no way of telling if what the (((media))) tell us is true or not.
#14842531
Value is subjective and so must be the value of atrocities. A large atrocity that happens to an enemy may be "good" while a small atrocity which happens to one's own people is "bad".

Also one atrocity leads to another, the h-bombing of those two japanese cities was the culmination of a military scale conflict that began with the Pearl Harbour event. 911 in contrast was the opening of hostilities between the US and radical Islam and so is more comparable to Pearl Harbour than to hiroshima & nagasaki.

Look out Mecca and Medina if the US chooses to finish the war against terror the way it finished the war against imperial japan.... :O
#14842532
SolarCross wrote:
Look out Mecca and Medina if the US chooses to finish the war against terror the way it finished the war against imperial japan.... :O


After 9/11 the world become fearful and respectful toward Islam. They invent the term "islamophobia" and working to criminalize any offender. They gained a lot from this attack, not for the first time.
#14842550
Both were terrible crimes. The US's chemical bombs in Korea were incredibly terrible. Also, the first 9/11. The Iraq "war". The destruction of Libya. I could be here all day....

neopagan wrote:I would not compare these events 9/11 was a sneaky attack by Arab religious fanatics out of nothing more than spite.


That's a very sharp analysis of the event. :D
#14842719
anarchist23 wrote:Based on the numbers, it would appear that far more people physically suffered from the atomic bombings than from the 9/11 attacks.



https://www.quora.com/Which-is-a-worse- ... a-Nagasaki


No doubt, by far, Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing. Only a person with no respect for human life would joke about Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing. That should be compared to what Hitler did not with 2 buildings being imploded by USA in their own country.



Think about the Children
Telepathic seedlings
Think about the girls
Inaccurate blindness
Think about women
Altered routes
Think of the wounds
Like warm roses
But, oh, do not forget
About the rose of roses
The roses from Hiroshima
The Hereditary Rose
The radioactive rose
Stupid and invalid
The rose with cirrhosis
The atomic anti-rose
No perfume, no color
A rose without a rose, without anything
Last edited by Politiks on 11 Sep 2017 21:31, edited 2 times in total.
#14842733
B0ycey wrote:What was a worse atrocity? Pearl Harbour or 9/11?

If you don't want a war perhaps don't attack first. Unfortunately once you do, gloves are off.


USA implanted the Condor plan in Argentina, Brazil (kind of failed on this one), Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay. USA created a school to form dictators, to form a army to infiltrate other countries politics. In Chile alone, Pinochet killed 100.000 people. Over 30.000 died in Argentina. Do you think is justifiable for them to throw a atomic bomb in innocent civilians in 2 of the most populated cities in USA? Imagine if Brazil decided to give USA a payback and turned Houston and NYC into ashes, into a distant radioactive memory.

South Americans would never do that, we are not savage animals. But we do want Henry Kissinger's head and hopefully we will get it.
#14842742
anarchist23 wrote:Yes. The Americans can justify the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocents but are unable to understand why they were attacked in 9/11. They just don't get it.


This is entirely inconsistent to point out that American foreign policy contributed to a situation in which 9/11 happened, but then to imply the same wasn't true for the atomic bombings of Japan.

Far worse atrocities were committed by the Japanese, who literally reveled in the barbaric rape and slaughter of whole Chinese cities and villages. And that was just China.

During WWII, each side that had a functional air force conducted bombing of enemy civilian population centers. Everyone did this. Whole cities were destroyed and millions were killed.
#14842752
Politiks wrote:USA implanted the Condor plan in Argentina, Brazil (kind of failed on this one), Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay. USA created a school to form dictators, to form a army to infiltrate other countries politics. In Chile alone, Pinochet killed 100.000 people. Over 30.000 died in Argentina. Do you think is justifiable for them to throw a atomic bomb in innocent civilians in 2 of the most populated cities in USA? Imagine if Brazil decided to give USA a payback and turned Houston and NYC into ashes, into a distant radioactive memory.

South Americans would never do that, we are not savage animals. But we do want Henry Kissinger's head and hopefully we will get it.


What has this for to do with anything? You think I am a fan of US interference? Politics should be internal. Only trade should be external. I have no support for US foriegn policy.

But this wasn't my point anyway. Japan was at war with the US. Do you think they would spare the US if it was they who had the Manhattan Project? Do you think morals were high in 1940's Japan? Do you think they treated POW fairly? They were worse than the Nazis. These bombs, as bad as they were, ended the war. Perhaps they actually saved more lives than were lost. Either way, you enter a war by attacking first, gloves are off. Japan learned the hard way.

So what was a worse atrocity? Pearl Harbour or Hiroshima? Because if there was no Pearl Harbour, there wouldn't have been Hiroshima.
#14842754
Bulaba Jones wrote:This is entirely inconsistent to point out that American foreign policy contributed to a situation in which 9/11 happened, but then to imply the same wasn't true for the atomic bombings of Japan.

Far worse atrocities were committed by the Japanese, who literally reveled in the barbaric rape and slaughter of whole Chinese cities and villages. And that was just China.

During WWII, each side that had a functional air force conducted bombing of enemy civilian population centers. Everyone did this. Whole cities were destroyed and millions were killed.



Just because other sides were doing it doesn't make it right. I struggle to see how directing massive firepower at civilian centres can be justified.

The rationale for nuking Japan was to get them to surrender quickly before the Soviets captured too much territory. The bombs could have been dropped on isolated military targets and still got the message across.
Revolutionary Hope

To get back to the OP and ignore TTP's ignorance o[…]

....and tet you have completely ignored the inher[…]

I'm not confused at all about both of you whining[…]

I see. You have no argument. Just feelings. An[…]