Because it's America, simple as that. Also I believe the Hiroshima thing affected even more aswell, people are still affected by it.

Seinfeld wrote Because it's America, simple as that. Also I believe the Hiroshima thing affected even more aswell, people are still affected by it.

Pretty sure there isn't a Holocaust Memorial Day either. Compare them and think how much worse the holocaust was.
-Murica

It's because it was an event that took place out of America, they're more concerned on what's happening within our own country.

CapCom wrote It's because it was an event that took place out of America, they're more concerned on what's happening within our own country.

Sure the actual event took place out of the US, but... the US... was the ones... that did it??? Sooooooooo this literally makes no sense.. its not like the bombing didnt make news in the US, its not like people were helping fund the wars or anything like that, its not like the US was going mad over what was happening in war time.

@OP What are you trying to accomplish by making this thread? Bring down the US ok ok.

To answer your question as to why no one talks about the US involvement in WWII is because well it was like 70 years ago.. and I dont even know what youre talking about I feel like there is always a WW2 history channel special going on.. soooo I dont know where youre at. Back to the time thing, im pretty sure in 55 more years 9-11 will be "overlooked" just as much as the bombing of japan.

btw ive never heard anyone say 9-11 is the worst event to ever happen in history. You must not be from the US because its not like people converse about 9-11 on a daily basis and make a daily thing to discuss the event.. in fact no one ever brings it up until the actual date of September 11th.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary evils that ended World War 2.
As for your holocaust post, yes, there are multiple remembrance days for that.

You're drunk if you think nobody talks about Hiroshima.

The bombings were necessary they would've never backed down if we hadn't done that.

Lavish wrote The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary evils that ended World War 2.
As for your holocaust post, yes, there are multiple remembrance days for that.

You're drunk if you think nobody talks about Hiroshima.

Who talks about Hiroshima?

Knoccouts wrote

Lavish wrote The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary evils that ended World War 2.
As for your holocaust post, yes, there are multiple remembrance days for that.

You're drunk if you think nobody talks about Hiroshima.

Who talks about Hiroshima?

Just about everyone who brings up WW2?

I think this is a much more complicated comparison than anyone can fully understand.
There are rules of analogy which have to be followed and certain axioms which two people have to agree on before both could even agree that they are analogous.

For example:

- Is killing innocents during war wrong?
- Did America use proportionality in their retaliation to Pearl Harbour and the pacific theater of war?
- Are right and wrong objective or subjective?

All of these questions could be answered differently depending on who you ask, so deciding whether or not 9/11 is analogous to the H&N bombings is extremely difficult, even if you are only talking about 'which was worse?'

According to online polls on sites like debate.org people seem to be evenly split on whether or not the H&N bombings were justified, but more think that they were worse than 9/11 than do not, assuming they are indeed analogous.
Most people say that the one thing which refutes any equivalence made between the two acts is that H&N were used to deter Japan from causing further deaths, while 9/11 was an act of terror. The only ways to remove this claim of false equivalence is to bring the H&N bombings down to the level of a simple act of terror... or to legitimize the 9/11 attacks as a justified attack on American soil.

There are ways of manipulating certain axioms to make both of these things possible.

To legitimize 9/11
If you say that right and wrong are subjective you could never truly say that 9/11 was wrong.
According to the terrorists what they were doing was morally right.
Objective morality cannot be proven without the existence of a higher power so you have no way of telling a terrorist that what they are doing is wrong unless you can prove that your version of God exists and that he says what they are doing is wrong.

To simplify H&N to an act of terror
Definition of Terrorism: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

According to Diplomatic History Volume 14: "The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

According to the Doomsday theory: "Should any nation ever possess a Doomsday device, or a missile large enough to end human life, all attacks and aggressors would be deterred."

America could have showed off the power of the atomic bomb in non-civilian populated areas, either in the US or Japan.
It is suspect that the US chose a civilian population with a ratio of 6 civilians to 1 soldier as the first target, rather than the second.

According to the Just War theory a response to an attack must be in proportionality and must not unnecessarily target civilians. This means that if Japan destroys a harbour filled with military personnel using relatively small bombs, the US should respond in kind, not by targeting a civilian population and using the most destructive device known to mankind at that time.

Also, according to the Just War theory, an act of war should not be undertaken if it is unsure whether or not the outcome will result in more civilian deaths than the act itself.

Arguably, this refers more to the beginning of the war than the bombings, but it should still be taken under consideration as to whether or not the US continuing to fight using conventional methods would have resulted in more innocent deaths than the use of the atomic bombs.
It is not very hard to see the H&N bombings as acts of terrorism, all things considered.

As for the question of why Americans and people in general focus more on 9/11, the answer is quite simple in my opinion.
9/11 is much more recent, like Qwel has said.
The H&N bombings have entered the realm of the history books to be thought over by historians and talked about in class rooms. They are not something brought up in day to day conversation because their effects are not felt as strongly on the world today as opposed to that of 9/11.

Not to mention that most people don't debate whether or not 9/11 was justifiable, whereas H&N exist in a grey area which makes people hesitant to comment on them.

Some caveats: