What do you think?

Question

I was watching a television show about meteor impacts, and the announcer said that the famous Siberian impact of 1904 was approximately as strong as 20,000 Hiroshima blasts.

Which leads me to wonder: do the people of Nagasaki ever feel left out? Most things measured by bomb blasts reference Hiroshima. I don't think I've ever heard Nagasaki used. I think that I would feel overlooked if I lived in Nagasaki. I'd be like "Hello? WE GOT BOMBED TOO! A TON OF PEOPLE DIED!" But that's just me.

By the way, I am not intending at all to be mean or to make fun of Japanese people or joke about the horrors of the atomic bomb blasts. I mean this question seriously. Do you think that people from Nagasaki are offended by never being mentioned?

Answer 1

Ha ha ha ha good question!!!!!!

Too bad. I'm from Nagasaki Prefecture, but not Nagasaki City, which is a capital city of the prefecture and was A-bombed in 1945, so I can't tell you exactly how people in Nagasaki feel when they hear the reference to Hiroshima but not Nagasaki. My guess is that while older people may get offended, younger people could care less.

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but to many Japanese people, bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not two separate incidents; rather, they are one concept, a strong reminder of what war, however justified, is really about. And we do not regard the attacks something happened only to us; we consider them as one big tragedy for the entire human race.

And I don't think that you are making fun of Japanese people or making light of the bombings... this is a very good question.

Answer 2

Nagasaki was not quite as severe. Central Nagasaki is surrounded by mountains which kept the affected area relatively small. Hiroshima is on very flat terrain, so the blast spread out farther, there was more damage and more people died. (Look at the characters sometime: Nagasaki is "long cape" and Hiroshima is "wide islands.") 80,000 died in Nagasaki compared to 140,000 in Hiroshima, even though the cities were about the same population at the time. (Hiroshima is actually much larger today.)

Technically, the Nagasaki bomb was much more powerful, but geography kept its effects from being realized in terms of fatalities.

There's also the simpler fact that Hiroshima was first...

Answer 3

I guess in some respects I would. I'd want people to recognize that it was more than Hiroshima, but at the same time maybe it's best if we could out the horrific past behind us. I guess I would not feel left out when people say "20,000 times as strong as Hiroshima blasts", I would not care, but if a history books said that the Americans only bombed Hirshima, and never mentions Nagasaki, then maybe I'd be upset.

Answer 4

A lot of times Hiroshima is over looked for Nagasaki. People just tend to refer to Hiroshima because it was the first one ever that happened. I highly doubt that the people in Nagasaki are offended, they are much more consumed with thoughts of world peace if anything else. And also, the elimination of Atomic bombs.

Yes, the people who live in Hiroshima do think about it. The memorial is a huge park right in the middle of the city. It is a major thing that happened there and continues to affect them. Try talking in person to a real survior who was blown 6 feet in the air and see what they have to say, I did.

Answer 5

Solid question-IMO the average Japanese person doesn't really think about the events of the war years very much. Residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no different, although they do have the memorial services etc. So "Hiroshima envy" is just not an issue in Nagasaki.

Answer 6

In Japan, I have heard the reference of Nagasaki several times.

But the reason is simple. Nagasaki is the 2nd. and the damage was smaller than Hiroshima.
And I don't think the TV news programs in the world (like CNN) would try to emphasize the damages or effects twice.
The topic of nuke is delicate proposition in the world today.
especially for US. Do they want Iran also refer those 2 past facts to measure or compare the energy?

Answer 7

Since the Hiroshima blast was bigger - being an airburst - and more destructive, it's natural that it would be used as a point of reference when talking about destructive forces like the Siberian impact.

What is forgotten and yet killed more people was the firebombing of Tokyo in May of that year.

Answer 8

Nah! i don't think so! It really doesn't matter... i guess Hiroshima already represents Nagasaki too

Answer 9

I'm wondering why America atom-bombed Japan twice. Was it necessary to bomb twice?

特筆すべきは、広島はウラン型原爆で長崎はプロトニウム型原爆。
原爆投下は一つで十分だと思われるのに、何故、長崎にも投下されたのか？
日本を降伏させるために、念には念を入れたのか？

アメリカは、新型のプロトニウム型原爆の実験をしたかったのか、あるいは
新型原爆の技術を既に保有していることをソ連に見せ示したかったと
勘ぐられても仕方がない。

Answer 10

I think you are just like my U.S. History teacher. But anyways it is very stupid.