Hiroshima - Japan

DemographicsAs of 2006, the city has an estimated population of 1,154,391, while the total population for the metropolitan area was estimated as 2,043,788 in 2000. The total area of the city is 905.08 km², with a density of 1275.4 persons per km².The population around 1910 was 143,000. Before World War II, Hiroshima's population had grown to 360,000, and peaked at 419,182 in 1942. Following the atomic bombing in 1945, the population dropped to 137,197. By 1955, the city's population had returned to pre-war levels.EconomyHiroshima is the center of industry for the Chūgoku-Shikoku region, an

Hiroshima Pictures

Hiroshima Hiroshima Hiroshima


Videos on Hiroshima


Discussion on Hiroshima

ellie :

How many people died due to the nucs the U.S dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp)?

Robert C :
"not enough"
John16 :
"They died because they attacked us and would not surrender. They had it coming."
Neo-Libertarian :
"Between 100,000-200,000 people if you include all the people who died of cancer that they got because of the nuclear blast."
Ricardo J :
"Fewer than died from Japan's war of aggression against the world."
the salad tosser :
"revenge for pearl harbor"
granpajoel :
"appx. 300,000 to 350,000 since people are still dieing today b/c of the nuclear fallout"
Rich C :
"About 214,000 according to offical sources, both US and Japanese."
DlCK Chenney :
"over 1.5 million people died during the impact and radiation burned and other cancer after that. And the bomb was designed and encouraged by a jew, albert eisientien. Now israel think they own the patent and iran can't have it."
Brian V :
"Too many, but the price was justified by the millions of American lives sparred when the Japanese surrender after the bombs fell. See a manned invasion of Japan would have been disasterous for our soldiers, the Japanese were honor bound to fight down to the last man woman and child. The death toll would've doubled or maybe even trippled. That's why President Truman gave the order to drop those two doomsday weapons."
briang731/ bvincent :
"Google Hiroshima and Nagasaki ! You've got to make some effort to get you homework done !"
gimmyafrickenbreak :
mowhok1 :
"a couple of hundred thousand . there are still suferers so the final tally cant be counted just yet"
"Hundreds of thousands, counting later deaths from radiation. You can google it. Another question is how many people would have died in a longer war, if they hadn't been dropped. We will never know the answer to that one."
Pablo :
"http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml 135,000 died of a population of 255,00"
ally_oop_64 :
"Perhaps around 200,000. Dropping the 2 a-bombs on Japan forced there surrender. The Japs were warned in advance about the bombings. They were told what cities and when. They had ample opportunity to start evacuating. If the US had not nuked Japan, the US would have had to invade the island of Japan. Which may have resulted in another million American casualties. If that had happened then maybe you and I might not be here today."
William B :
"200,000 - 300,000. If the americans invaded Japan the deaths would have been alot more. the japanese were training children to jump under tanks with explosives and how to use swords and guns. everyone was ready to fight for every last step. the military made so many Purple Hearts they are still handing those out today to wounded soldiers"
just the facts :
"Thousands! But I mean thousands less than would have died if an invasion of Japan would have been necessary."
Sronce :
"during the initial blast of both 250,000 after wards is anybodies guess"
Vote for me and recieve your fre :

Ok so Hiroshima ended the war but was it justified ? Oh by the way this is my opinion - I believe that at the time it may of seemed like the logical anser because most the enemie fighters would of prefered to die than surrender and in the long term saved thousands of american lives but i personnaly think too many civilians were killed to a point were it was extremely wrong. Im not saying it was the correct thing to do but like it or not it worked. Thanks for ansering

emma j :
"militarily - yes morally - good question! I don't know the history and politics well enough to give a reasoned answer taking into account the intransigence of the Japanese government and the impatience of the American... I do know it was a terrible act"
Robert C :
"The murder of innocent men, women and children can never be justified. That is not to say that ignorant bast*rds don't still try to do so. They quote mythical figures that would have died if those weapons hadn't been unleashed on the innocent, but never mention the hundreds of thousands that lost their lives and suffered agonies during and after the cowardly attacks. Never in a million years could this act be justified."
snafu :
"yes..in my opinion. i know it killed a lot of people but the alternative was another year fighting a war that would have ended up killing anything up to ten times the lamount of lives .the us would have to have fought every inch of land they took and taking many lives to do it..hiroshima was a horrible thing but was the lesser of 2 evils."
pawstart :
"it was for the men that suffered out there and the ones that came back were lucky. yes i think it was and wasnt justified brought people to there senses and an end to the massacres but still alot of suffering"
Mary Jo W :
"yes. Japan attacked the USA, they had it coming"
Babs :
"No. Killing on that scale as revenge is indefensible. However, I don't think those who ordered the bombing had any idea of the horror what they were unleashing."
roadrunner426440 :
"Clearly the US would have invaded Japan resulting in the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides So that is hastened the end of the war - yes Another fact lost on people most people is that the USSR entered the war against Japan just before the bomb - if the war had not ended quickly most of northern Japan would have been under their control So was it worth it? Yes - was it a shame Japan did not surrender earlier - definitely"
Chris P :
"i think the issue is that japan was not warned - if they were told of the power of the bomb they would have surrendered, yet it was a surprise attack on the US which started it all of course. also you have to consider that if japan or nazi germany had had the bomb they would have used it as well and probably more than 2. militarily it saved many allied lives but the use of nuclear weapons is never morally justified"
SFC_Ollie :
"Well the conspiracy people who hate America now say that we would have won anyway or that japan had all ready tried to surrender. I believe we would have had to land on mainland japan and fight house by house for the entire island. I believe a million or more would have died. I believe we did the right thing and only wished we could have done it 6 months sooner."
Ronald D :
"Why do people consider it more morally questionable to kill 60,000 with one bomb than it was to kill 100,000 with thousands of bombs (Tokyo)? If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, than it would have been necessary to kill possiblly hundred's of thousands of more civilians during an invasion. There should be no moral questions regarding the dropping of the atom bombs."
Think Sane :
""saved thousands of american lives" --> Can you please do the math for me? how many japanese lives are equal to one american life. "northern japan would have been a part of USSR" --> How does it matter to you and me? Is it so bad for those people? Who are we to chose for them? Can killing hundreds of thousands of people be called GENOCIDE? US declared war because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Why did Japan attack pearl harbor? Cause US was supplying funds, arms, ammunation, military equipment to Brits and Russians. They are wrong to attack my country though I am funding the helping others to kill them,"
J&C H :
"This is one of those questions that cannot be answered by us. We are too far removed. We can look back and say, "Oh, they should or should not have done this or that." But we cannot logically fault or praise any of the decisions made 60 some years ago."
Scouse :
"Yes both militarily and morally. sadly even then it saved more lives than it would have costs on both sides had an invasion taken place. Sadly in this modern age non-combatants do not count for anything if they are in the way of a military target. cities supply either materials or labour for war and again sadly they are now targets. No one ever escapes in a war at their front door. I glad I do not have to makae these horrible decisions"
Baldeagle :
"It would be wrong to nuke Iraq, since we proactively invaded their nation to overthrow an Islamic radical regime. Japan, however, attacked us unprovoked. We weren't the military superpower we are now on Dec. 7, 1941. Today, raiding Pearl Harbor would be a blow to the U.S., but not a devastating blow. We would come from all corners of the earth with hellfire from all branches of service to retaliate against something like that. Back in 1941, we were lucky not to have our Navy completely destroyed. It may not seem so obvious, but if people were betting on the outcome of the war in 1941, America v. Japan, Japan would probably have been the one to come out on top in the betting pools. They hadn't lost a major battle in a couple of thousand years. That war was devastating as it was, but it would have been a lot worse. By the time Hiroshima was bombed, the Japanese STILL did not surrender. (If they had been a democratic-republican form of government, they would not have gone to war w/ the US, and they darn sure would have surrendered either after Iwo Jima or after Hiroshima if they did war with us). As it was, we bombed Nagasaki too, because "they" (the Emperor) did not surrender. In terms of today's world, we would probably pursue a decapitation strike against 'Hito, take out Japan's communications, and blockade their nation. We have that kind of strength now. Back then, they were the big dog when they picked the fight with us. It's a shame when civilians are killed, and it's a shame when anyone is killed in war. The best solution to preventing nuclear war, and most war, is to have everyone in charge of their government, not the other way around. Emperors, dictators, kings, and tyrants war over emotional and egotistical reasons. People, in general, are less likely to succumb to that type of emotion. For example, by and large, we chose to invade Iraq as a nation. Through our elections and as indicated by numerous polls, this country was on board with a pre-emptive strike. In a post 9/11 world, it's not an irrational thought. Polls even today show that the majority of Americans favor a strike (or at least the threat of a military strike) on Iran's nuclear facilities and military headquarters. At the same time, national polls show Americans wanting an Iraq withdrawal. Some of that opinion shift was evident in the 2006 mid-term elections. If the American trend is towards withdrawal (neglecting other issues, both domestic and overseas), then the 2008 general election may see a President Hillary Clinton with a Democratic-controlled House and Senate...which would presumably completely end our involvement in Iraq almost immediately (if you listen to the rhetoric, at least). The point is, in a roundabout way, that people sway opinion in democratically elected governments (I use that term democratically very loosely...a republican form of government like we have here in the U.S. is actually a better term). People don't like to nuke other people, or see continued deaths without some extreme need. People will actually get turned off to a worthwhile battle before they should, while a dictator or emperor will be extreme in the opposite way, by continuing to fight a losing battle, causing even more devastation. Nuclear war is a terrible possibility, and hopefully it never happens again. But when you judge the actions of Truman and our nation during that time, just try to do it in the proper frame of reference."
john m :
"Yes it was right to do that at that time. We must look at it not with the eyes of today but what was known in 1945. If you say it was wrong. Ok then the US would have Fire Bombed the same towns. The fire raids on Japan started in 1945. The fire raids were ordered by General Curtis LeMay, who some see as the ‘Bomber Harris’ of the Pacific War, in response to the difficulty B-29 crews had in completing pinpoint strategic bombing over Japanese cities. LeMay, therefore, decided that blanket bombing raids on cities to undermine the morale of civilians were an appropriate response. The Tokyo firebombing has long been overshadowed by the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which preceded the Japanese surrender that ended World War II the following August. But the burning of the capital, which resulted in more immediate deaths than either of the nuclear bombings, stands as a horrifying landmark in the history of warfare on noncombatants. The official death toll was some 83,000, but historians generally agree that victims unaccounted for bring the figure to around 100,000 — overwhelmingly civilians. It is widely considered to be the most devastating air raid in history."
Robert S :
"Think Sane: You should live up to the first part of your screen name. Japan was not at war with Britain in 12/41 and was not at war with the USSR until 8/45. Why would the US supplying weapons to them mean war with Japan? The alliance with Germany was purely defensive, which was Japan's justification for not declaring war on the USSR. In your eyes, was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor justified because the weapons the US was supplying would make it tougher for Japan to seize Russian and British possessions later? Debating the "morality" of the atomic bombs is a pointless exercise. WW2 was the most horrible of wars. Had the atomic bombs never existed, the war would have continued. Read about the coup that was attempted before the Japanese Emperor's radio address could be broadcast. People talk of the "unsupportable" numbers of people who would have died in an invasion of Japan. Where is the proof that the militants in the Japanese government would have surrendered? As I said, this is a pointless question because there are those who are convinced of the continued evil and guilt of the US. I am waiting for them to start decrying the unjustified rebellion of 1776."
fbomonkey :
"It was the right choice all the way around. US planners were expecting one million American soilders killed tring to take the mainland of Japan and that is not counting British or Aussie forces. Just imagine the number of Japanese that would have been killed had we been forced to invade...we would have been comiting genocide because they would never have surrendered. Weighing 120,000 give or take from the two nukes vs. millions of dead on both sides I would drop the bomb without question. Saddly it was the lesser of 2 evils."
univee :
"I've weighed this for years, and as a Truman scholar, I've had the chance to read about this, and have studied the opinions of many who were involved in the decision. The opinion you express above is in fact the opinion that has pretty much been force fed to the public for years. The theory is the Japanese would have gone down fighting really hard, and the invasion would have been costly... That made sense to me until I began to really learn what was going on in Japan right at that moment in history. The real truth seems to be that Japan had already lost, and they knew it all too well. In fact, they were suing for peace to the Vatican on the day the bombs were dropped. In effect, that were in the process of surrendering. There was no way they could have staged a resistance to the invasion, had such an invasion even been necessary. They were broke, and their army was decimated. You couldn't buy a pair of shoes in Tokyo at that point. The populace was starving and the army was demoralized. I have come to believe that the decision to use the bomb was a power play, aimed at frightening Russia and China, because the US knew that they would be our main competitors for the next period of history. So no. My opinion has settled at this: it was militarily uncalled for, morally indefensible and really just a political maneuver. I have seen that many others have come to this conclusion looking back and having a better knowledge of the actual facts of the time."
Ryan R :
"It was justified. I think people back then were more concerned with winning the war than the suffering of the enemy. I wish we were more like that today."
john_galt0 :
"Here is your choice; 1million dead American soldiers, 10 million dead Japanese civilians, the total destruction of their civilization, and Soviet occupation of Northern Japan OR 100,000 dead Japanese civilians. What is your choice and is it moral? Robert S. should study history a little bit harder. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and Hong Kong at the same time. The Japanese attacked Singapore and conquered it. Japan was at war with Britain in 12/41. Legally Japan was an ally of Germany. When Japan attacked us they placed themselves legally at odds with Britian. As for some others; Okinawa and Iwo Jima were Japan! The civilian population chose death to capitulation just as they would have on the mainland."
Dirty Dave :
"Anybody know what the Japs did when they marched through China? They were invincible at the time and made Atilla the Hun look like a Sunday school teacher, raping, pillaging, looting, and marching around with babies on their bayonets. Or anyone hear of the Bataan Death March, and what their soldiers did to thousands of Filipinos and innocent missionaries? Don't even get me started about the torture and starvation American POW's endured. And we worry about "waterboarding". Give me a break! Was it the right decision? Did they deserve it? Did it save not only American lives but Japanese lives as well? They started it, we finished it. Bet your A** it was justified. Edit: Chris P- They were warned...........twice. They chose to ignore the deadlines given and did not reply."
Michael W :
"Did you forget Pearl Harbor?"
bob t :
"also remember the ports of hiroshima and nagasaki were military targets and that is why they were selected. Would bombing tokoyo been better? I think not that would have been morally wrong."
darrell m :
"yes it was justified. you need to understand the Japanese mindset of the time. they were all considered soldiers if needed so you kill a few with a bomb or a hell of lot more later. you and I in 2007 can't debate the issue anyway it already happened end of story."
Toe Cutter :
"Totally necessary & totally justified. We should bomb it again just in case."
banky_edwards1979 :
"killing civilians is NEVER justified (on both sides of the war of course)"
crazyziggy6_0 :
"I agree with what you said. They did it to prevent many many more live being lost by suicide bombers and people will to die even when they know it is a battle they were not going to win. So we did it to save thousands on both sides of the WWII"
bigjon5555 :
"you have to remember that all war is hell and no good.but if the Japanese, had the bomb or the Germans, they would of used it against us.in any war civilians die.but they were warned before it was dropped to surrender.but they refused to do so.and as a result a second bomb was dropped as well.you are right it was a terrible thing to do.but no one had any idea that this bomb was as powerful as it was.it;s sad that so many died as a result of some stupid Japanese generals who thought that after the first bomb was dropped they still had a chance to win the war.so a lot of the blame has to go on the Japanese government for so many of their people dying.was it justified to use, yes it ended a terrible war.was pearl harbor justified.in the first place the American government was talking about peace with the japanese governemnt.and at the same time they were planing a secret attack against our pacific fleet.what about the 3,200 lives taken that day back in dec 1941.most of the military personal were sleeping when the attack on pearl harbor took place.so you ask was it justified.if you served back then you;d of said yes as well.what ever it takes to end death and destruction you must use it.we did what we thought was the right thing to do at the time.and it saved millions of lives.god forbid we ever have to do it again."
"Most points have been covered ie if the bomb hadnt been dropped then the US would have had to fight on Japanese soil and many more millions would have died.One person said that the US didnt give warning of the power of this weapon or the Japanese would have capitulated before it was dropped yet the Japanese carried on fighting until the SECOND bomb was dropped and it was only then that the Emperor overruled his war cabinet and capitulated.The dropping of this weapon was regretable as it started a new cold war where we now have enough weapons to destroy the whole planet and more.The sad part of the dropping of this bomb is that NO ONE learned a lesson and said this is too much and banned it all together we blindly went on producing more and more"
mr.mancunian :
"You could say the same about the RAF bombing German Occupied areas of Europe during the war where many civilians were killed and vice-versa with the Luftwaffe bombing Britain."
Ankleboots :
"yes it was justifyed, when the emperor signed the treaty of surrendor, his generals were sat round a table ready to order and commit more japanese men, some as young as 14 to fight on, so it was justifyed, is it justifyed that the japanese committed so much terror, to prisoners of war, armed forces, and civilians living in far eastern countries, no, but they did do, much more cruelly than the germans, at least those who were in german pow camps complyed to the geneava convention, the japanese did not recognise this document many many suffered torture, diseases and died."
Mike :
"Is too easy to make judgements with the benefit of hindsight and dangerous to apply the standards of today to the events of the past. I think at the time the US saw the A bomb as an opportunity to bring the war to an end quickly and without incurring further US casualties. Militarily they were right, although it took the 2nd, Nagasaki bomb to drive through the surrender. Morally, I have always struggled to understand the problem with using a bomb that is essentially 'bigger' than conventional bombs. Both types of bomb kill people and destroy buildings etc; we are arguing over scale. The war that was being fought was as near to a total war as we have seen so far and in that concept there are no civilians. Those not in the armed forces of their country have always been at risk since wars began and lands were invaded. Th advent of the aeroplane simply has put civilians in the front line, where casualties are inevitable."
ladymoonlight :
"Depends on how you look at it. If the war had carried on, many more people would have died. Just different people. WWII was never going to end without a lot of bloodshed. The Japanese were like maniacs, committing terrible atrocities in their POW camps, suicide missions etc. It was seemingly the only way to make them stop. Like a short sharp shock it forced them to capitulate. I don't think anyone can justify the loss of life or say all those individual deaths were "justified" but maybe that the raid was sadly "necessary"."
wild-man of Borneo :
"Decode this lyrics "You raised me up" The punishment and destruction of human errors of the past. Leviticus 26.30-41 With the Liberation of Freedom for the good of mankind from after world war two with the creation of peace on earth goodwill to men in the creation of a new civilization for the good of mankind. Exodus 20.1-2 Leviticus 26.13 What do you think?"
Anastasia M :

i need reasons as to why the dropping of Hiroshima was a wrong according to the scientists that created the bomb. or if they felt different; reasons on that would be good as well. please include references as i need a bibliography

Rhonnie :
"Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally assert that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, thus saving many lives. It is argued that there would have been massive casualties on both sides in the Operation Downfall invasion of Japan,[52] and that even if Operation Downfall were postponed, the status quo of conventional bombings and the Japanese occupations in Asia were causing tremendous loss of life. A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crimes against humanity and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them. For more info try this link I hope it helps!"
singhcanto :
"If you believe it was wrong... which MOST of the Scientists in Los Alamos did NOT feel was a mistake... so if you are going to quote supposed facts... then quote them correctly. It was not wrong... it saved MILLIONS of lives.. both AmeriKan AND Japs... because the Japs would have defended the home islands TO THE LAST PERSON... it would have been a GENOCIDE... but all of you people who don't know crap about WW2 or have even TALKED so some AmeriKan soldier or Sailor who would have been KILLED in the taking of Japan are so ready to dazzle us who remember WW2 with your total lack of knowledge about how things REALLY WERE in 1945. The sad thing is, you idiot revisionists will eventually win the argument because as we people who REMEMBER WW2 die off and you can spout your ignorance to people who know even less about WW2..."


Comments on Hiroshima

Date: 2008-02-05 02:04:23

Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the following nuclear arms race, the safety and security of nuclear weapons continues to intrigue us. The idea of anyone stealing dangerous weapons and unleashing them on targets has made its way into countless suspense novels, movies and television shows.

Date: 2008-02-05 02:04:23

About 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the explosion leveled trees over 2,150 square kilometers (830 square miles)… And it could happen again. NASA isn't funding research on this.

Date: 2008-02-05 02:04:23

If someone should feel compelled to make a film about 9/11 -- specifically, about the social and psychic toll that the attacks have and haven't taken -- a good model would be Akira Kurosawa's I Live in Fear, out on DVD in the Criterion Collection's Eclipse series. Made in 1955, just a decade after Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Date: 2008-02-05 02:04:23

11 days priced from $10,625 pp, do. Based on family of 4Tokyo, Nikko, Edo Mura, Kamakura, Hakone, Hiroshima, Himeji-jo, Kyoto, Nara

Varification Code: Visual CAPTCHA

More pages on Hiroshima

Fun Walks with Professional Guides! Hiroshima Prefecture presents a wonderful opportunity to find out about many of its attractive sightseeing spots with a four-part series of ...

Hiroshima Prefecture - Encounters
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks during World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States of America at the order of U.S.
Hiroshima Prefecture - Encounters

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free ...
Hiroshima-Nishi Airport ( 広島西飛行場 , Hiroshima Nishi Hikōjō ? ) ( IATA : HIW ,  ICAO : RJBH ) is an airport in Nishi Ward , Hiroshima City , Hiroshima Prefecture ...
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free ...

Hiroshima-Nishi Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hiroshima hotels: Know before you go, with TripAdvisor's 136 traveler reviews and 72 candid photos for 54 accommodations in Hiroshima, Chugoku.
Hiroshima-Nishi Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia