How was 9/11 different than the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question

Both were vicious attacks on civilian targets with huge losses of innocent. Why then, do we consider the attack on Hiroshima to be on higher moral ground than the attacks on 9/11?

Pearl Harbor was an attack on a MILITARY TARGET. It is categorically different than an attack on CIVILIANS.

Are attacks on civilians ever justified? I doubt it.

Answer 1

The difference is that in 911 you have the opinion of the country which was attacked but in Hiroshima and Nagasaki you have the opinion of the country which made the attacks.

Answer 2

Well, yes, because 9/11 was an attack by a terrorist group.
It was not an attack by a nation with which we were at war.

Approximately 100,000 Japanese civilians were killed by the immediate effects of the Hiroshima bomb, somewhat less in the case of Nagasaki.

During the war, it became understood that the Japanese considered surrender as a personal and familial disgrace. This was exhibited by their no surrender defense of the Pacific Islands. It was also displayed by their callous attitude towards our captured soldiers many of whom starved to death.

In the days runnig up to the end of the war, military planners predicted the death toll of an invasion of Japan would run upwards of 10 million people, most of them untrained civilians in Japan fighting for their home soil. So confident were they in these figures that they procured 400,000 Purple Heart medals in expectation of casualties.

The dropping of the bombs ended the war with what could be called a minimal amount of casualties. It was the inevitable result of the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor.

When the war ended, both my father, and father in law were on ships headed for the invasion.

And the Purple Hearts are still being distributed today from that procurement.

Answer 3

Yes, they are similar in the ways you mentioned. I consider them all to be epic tragedies. Of course, each side is going to spin the event to make themselves look good.

People say that 9/11 was unprovoked. That is a classic case of keeping your head in the sand. That is by no means a justification of 9/11, but it didn't happen for no reason, regardless of whether we agree with that reason or not. Don't forget that we (as in the CIA) trained Osama and many of the high level operatives in the current Al Qaeda during the Reagan years, when it supposedly served our government's purpose. Our government has spent decades murdering people around the world , training those murderers, taking whatever they want, and are experts at covering their tracks. Groups, or if you prefer, terrorists, have been trying to retaliate for years, and finally, they got us (very likely because the Bush Administration was asleep at the switch). I find it funny to hear people say "no attacks since 9/11". Well, when were there any attacks on US soil prior to 9/11 since Pearl Harbor? You think "they" weren't trying back then? Bush takes office, we get attacked, and the Administration is forced to pay attention, and we should give them credit for doing what they were supposed to do in the first place?

Answer 4

undesirable question, undesirable help, undesirable good judgment! hearth bomb Tokyo; out suitable incinerate 250,000 and historic previous in basic terms recorded it as a small blip! Drop 2 atomic weapons; kill one hundred twenty,000 and 60 years later the international nonetheless debates an act that unquestioningly ended WW2 and saved limitless LIVES. sure; Japan became actively negotiating peace words while the bomb dropped out the bomb door! sure; Japan became additionally negotiating non violent resolutions while they sent warplanes in direction of Pearl Harbor! sure a protection rigidity coup did not eliminate the eastern emperor's unbroadcast recorded resign speech! the protection rigidity argued to conflict to the final dwelling physique in Bushido attitude and custom. The resign became hastened by potential of concern that the protection rigidity might censure the emperor and proceed the conflict. sure, Japan additionally had a nuclear weapon progression attempt (failing yet in place) No! there have been no harmless females and young babies in Hiroshima. Hiroshima, a river delta city, became waiting for a land invasion. the protection rigidity became presenting and coaching college babies with sharpened bamboo spears to oppose such landing.

Answer 5

One, we warned the Japanese that we would bomb them.
Two Hiroshima was where Mitsubishi built the Zero's
Three were were already fire bombing Tokyo (which caused more deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined).
Four it was hoped that by "showing" Japan what utter destruction could be caused by the new bomb that they would surrender and a campaign similar to D-Day wouldn't be necessary in Japan. If it were millions of lives were at stake.

9/11 was an unprovoked attack on a purely civilian target with no other foresight other than to kill and cause terror.

Answer 6

Differences:
- We were official at war with Japan at the time.
If we were to be at war with the majority of
participants of 911 we'd be fighting Saudi Arabia
right now. Iraq was not involved.
- The 911 attacks killed almost 3,000 US civilians
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings killed a
conservative 250,000 Japanese civilians.
- Prior to the Hiroshima bombing, WWII was winding
down with all that was left was the invasion of
Japan itself. Our military estimated we would lose
500,000 troops in the invasion and Japan would
lose an estimated 1,000,000 troops plus countless
civilians casualties. The bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki were actually seen as a lesser of two
evils and a savings of many lives.

Answer 7

Does anyone notice how the people who parrot the unprovoked 9/11 thing forget that Clinton bombed the middle east? Matter of fact, it is the same people who keep parroting that Clinton didn't do anything.

Either way, both were attacks on civilians, to make a point during times of conflict, rather than attacking military targets.

bombing japan to save it?? well don't that sound familiar? I think we hung the last guy who said something like that.

Answer 8

annihilation? probably not the correct word to use, as i'm pretty sure hiroshima & nagasaki still exist. i don't recall the attackers or any of their 'affiliates' selflessly aiding victims (1 example = hiroshima maidens) and/or the affected of 911. i agree with you (i think) - it stinks, it really stinks, that it came to that. you & i can't possibly even put it into words (unless you were there, i don't know). i don't remember any publicly made warning to America from the attackers (ie: potsam from truman prior to hiroshima, and even a second warning prior to nagasaki).
.
i do agree with you - they are both horrible things. i do believe that the long term results of the attacks on hiroshima & nagasaki for America have turned out positive. unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what would have happened had we not followed thru with the warnings that truman asserted to Japan.
.
please post link your reference to 'higher moral ground', or add an example to your question (<-not sarcasm, btw)

Answer 9

Just a little piece of interesting history: (those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, how true) The Attack on Pearl Harbor was the catalyst that launched the USA into WW2. The little known but true bit of info not many of us now days know is that, quite similar to many theories today of GWB foreknowlege of an imminant attack on US soil, the Roosevelt Admin. also had inteligence of the imminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and did have a chance to head it off and prevent that tragedy. During the war before our involvement, our allies in Europe were begging us to get involved to help them, but America had an "isolationist" majority. FDR knew that the only way he could get Americans to agree to taking up arms was if something big happened, that is, an attack on Americans themselves.
Starting to sound familiar? They KNEW what was about to happen, and let it happen, so that the American public would be enflamed to the point of setting aside an American isolationist idea and rush headlong into a global conflict. We are now repeating history. True, then and now, we most likely would have been pulled into the war anyway. But it wouldn't have required the sacrifice of over 2400 servicemen in PH or the deaths of thousands in the Towers.
War is brutal. War is profitable. That is a time after time proven fact. While war is sometimes necessary for the greater good, it is not for the benefit of the good when unessesary sacrifices are made to make sure it commences.

Answer 10

I really appreciate the self-criticism in your question, something that Europeans often miss in USA people.

There is only a slight different. Nuclear attacks served to finish WWII, whereas 9/11 was purely revenge.

However, you can NEVER justify attacks on civilian targets. For me, it was CLEARLY A WAR CRIME that sadly will never be punished.

Answer 11

Don't forget that it was the Japanese who declared war on us by bombing Pearl Harbor in a cowardly sneak attack. It was thus which dragged us into WWII.

While it is true that Hiroshima and Nagasaki both involved horrible numbers of casualties, it is safe to say that those bombings effectively won us the war, thus saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives. Don't forget that the casualty rate during this war was somewhere between two and three thousand dead soldiers per day. We had to end the war quickly, so it's a matter of saving many by sacrificing a comparative few.

On the other hand, 9/11 was more analogus to Pearl Harbor, in that it was a cowardly sneak attack directed against targets which had previously shown no hostility. There was no intent to save lives by ending a long, drawn-out war, but rather to cause as much death and destruction and fear as possible. The goal? To bring the world to submission and promote the theology of a seventh-century tribal moon god (Allah).