Take another quiz >

Countries Bombed by the United States since WWII

Name the countries whose territory has been deliberately bombed by the U.S. with hostile intent, 1946-present.
Source: Wikipedia
Not counting accidental bombings
Not counting actions with no loss of life
Last updated: April 29, 2017
Rate:
4:00
Enter answer here:
0
 / 17 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers
The average score is
Your high score is
Your best time is remaining
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
2010s
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Pakistan
Somalia
Syria
Yemen
2000s
Afghanistan
Iraq
Pakistan
Yemen
1990s
Afghanistan
Iraq
Panama
Serbia and
Montenegro
Sudan
1980s
Grenada
Lebanon
Libya
Panama
1970s
Cambodia
Laos
North Vietnam
1960s
Cambodia
Cuba
Laos
North Vietnam
1950s
North Korea
+2
level ∞
Apr 29, 2017
Its possible this list is incomplete. However, there are a lot of bad sources on the internet that have a political axe to grind. We're happy to improve the quiz if there are errors, but please post evidence from a good source.
+2
level ∞
Apr 29, 2017
Panama appears in two different decades, but the action only lasted for about a month.
+1
level ∞
Apr 29, 2017
The U.S. also destroyed some Iranian off-shore oil platforms in 1988. As far as I know there was no loss of life. Furthermore, there was one incident where a bomber strayed into Chinese territory during the Korean War. This was claimed to be accidental, which it probably was due to strict orders to avoid invading China.
+1
level ∞
Apr 29, 2017
The reason for the description is that otherwise we would have to include countries like Kuwait and Bosnia that the U.S. bombing was intended to support.
+4
level 25
Aug 11, 2017
looks complete http://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html
+7
level ∞
Aug 11, 2017
This is exactly the type of inaccurate source with a political axe to grind I was referring to.
+1
level 67
Apr 29, 2017
got 16, 96th percentile, and only 4 points :c
+2
level 69
Apr 29, 2017
What about Somalia in the 1990s with the battle of Mogadishu? No bombs dropped I guess?
+1
level 45
Aug 13, 2017
Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing! I guess it probably has something to do with the fact that I watched Black Hawk Down last night!
+5
level 59
Apr 30, 2017
May I ask... what countries were bombed accidentally. I know we dropped nukes over ourselves and greenland but where else have we accidentally bombed?
+13
level 70
Apr 30, 2017
We accidentally bombed your mom once.
+5
level 63
Apr 30, 2017
What an immature reply.
+5
level 59
May 2, 2017
Immature, but admirable. I salute you.
+1
level 63
Apr 30, 2017
The countries mentioned by QM above.
+1
level ∞
Apr 30, 2017
Just China, as far as I know.
+2
level 73
May 1, 2017
And we accidentally nuked North Carolina http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/us/north-carolina-nuclear-bomb-drop/
+2
level 73
May 2, 2017
Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Also Switzerland, but 1) during WW2 and 2) possibly deliberately by accident .
+3
level 56
Apr 17, 2018
We've also done nuclear tests in what was once owned by the US such as the Marshall Islands.
+1
level 52
Apr 30, 2017
bosnia?
+3
level ∞
Apr 30, 2017
We weren't bombing Bosnians. We were bombing Serbians in Bosnia. Explained in the above comments.
+22
level ∞
May 1, 2017
And by we I mean the United States, not JetPunk. JetPunk has never bombed anybody. :)
+10
level 40
May 1, 2017
That's what they want you to think
+13
level 54
May 1, 2017
"Jetpunk has never bombed anybody." - QM 2017
+2
level 69
May 1, 2017
I'm not sure that I agree with this caveat though, because we were bombing "Bosnian Serbs" as well, who were Serb through ethnicity but Bosnian in residence and nationality. So although we were not hostile towards the government of Bosnia, we were hostile to those specific groups of people that were targeted, in a similar way to post-regime change operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Lebanon and Pakistan.
+2
level 78
May 3, 2017
We are Bosnian Serbs, not Serbians in Bosnia.
+5
level 56
May 17, 2017
In Bosnia, as in most civil wars, both sides claimed the territory of the whole country, and the 1995 NATO bombing was hostile against one side in a civil war on Bosnian soil. After the war, the country continued to exist with Serbs as a constituent nation. If you only consider the side that controls the capital city or the majority of the territory at a certain moment of time to be legitimate representative of a country, then Russian attacks against ISIS in Syria cannot be considered bombing Syria, since the Russians collaborate with the Syrian army. Also, the bombing of Pakistan wasn't aimed at the Pakistani government, but at the rebel forces, yet Pakistan is mentioned on this quiz. All in all, Bosnia and Herzegovina should definitely be on this list. Also, the name of the country NATO bombed in 1999 was FR Yugoslavia, the name hasn't been changed to Serbia & Montenegro until 2003.
+2
level 68
May 17, 2017
U potpunosti se slažem kao kreator ovog kviza. Imao sam malo duži spisak država, ali se glavnoodgovorni drži svojih kriterijuma.
+1
level 68
Sep 25, 2018
You tell him, girl.
+1
level 40
May 1, 2017
They will even tell you that the moon landing wasn't faked
+1
level 67
May 2, 2017
Unfortunately we don't all have your connections or intelligence and we tend to rely on the facts as presented.
+1
level 76
May 1, 2017
oy. Grenada. Of course. Only one I missed.
+1
level 52
May 1, 2017
Pedantically speaking, the U.S. bombed itself throughout the Cold War...which did lead to a few deaths from radiation, though unintentional
+1
level 65
May 2, 2017
Not only North Korea was bombed. South Korea was also bombed and civilians were targeted.
+2
level ∞
May 3, 2017
I don't know what you are referring to, but obviously the United States was defending South Korean interests. Including them would be against the spirit of the quiz.
+1
level 61
May 17, 2017
Guatemalans and Grenadians won't even spit on Reagan's grave.
+2
level 8
May 17, 2017
Horrendous behaviour - these countries are all over the world. Is there a quiz for Russia? Have they also been so aggressive?
+2
level 76
May 20, 2017
Russia has for centuries been extremely aggressive, but, they tend to focus more on their neighbors than countries far from their borders. If a country has ever shared a border with Russia or the Soviet Union, though, then there's a very good chance they've been invaded by them. If they haven't ceased to exist and been absorbed by Russia, that is. If they haven't been invaded then they've at least dealt with attempts to subvert and coopt their governments through mostly peaceful but no less aggressive means. A bit farther from home they also were involved in Vietnam and several places in the Middle East, but they usually prefer arming and propping up foreign armies rather than direct engagement. The US also prefers this most of the time but seem more willing to get their own hands dirty. This may be more to do with an ability to project power than a willingness to use it, though. Compare the United States' 20 aircraft carriers to Russia's 1.
+1
level 57
Jul 18, 2017
How about Chile in 1973?
+1
level 58
Aug 10, 2017
US forces didn't bomb Chile. The CIA just supported the Chilean military coup.
+5
level 67
Aug 10, 2017
Yup. The 9/11 you don't lower your flags for.
+1
level 47
Nov 26, 2017
@tshalla What are you trying to say?
+5
level 67
May 26, 2018
Well, there was an attack launched on September 11 which resulted in the near-immediate deaths of about 3,000 people. (That year, 1973, one of the key architects of the attack, Henry Kissinger, was co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.) The damage lasted a lot longer, however, under the harsh rule of Augusto Pinochet and the introduction of neoliberalism.
+2
level 76
Jul 13, 2018
The United States never attacked Chile. The CIA didn't do anything to stop the coup in 1973, but suggesting that Kissinger was a "chief architect" shows you don't know what you are talking about. And whether the CIA directly orchestrated, helped plan, explicitly condoned, tacitly approved, or simply did nothing to prevent (most likely scenario) the coup, no US bombs were dropped on Chile and nobody killed anyone there except for other Chileans acting on their own interests. This isn't to excuse Pinochet or the US government's material support for him, just to clarify that the US never attacked Chile for anyone confused by tshalla's tangent.
+2
level 67
May 21, 2019
Parrots are so noisy.
+1
level 58
Aug 10, 2017
Really an excellent quiz.
+3
level 59
Aug 10, 2017
Fun fact: From 1979 to 1983, Grenada was a marxist-leninist one-party state under constitutional monarchy (Elizabeth II).
+3
level 67
Aug 10, 2017
From a New York Times article from 1984: "The Army has awarded 8,612 medals to individual Americans involved in the October invasion of Grenada, although it never had more than about 7,000 officers and enlisted soldiers on the island." That was for combat that lasted a few hours.
+2
level 76
Aug 19, 2017
Keeping the entire world relatively peaceful for so long means you end up with a bunch of medals sitting around just begging to be pinned on something...
+1
level 38
Aug 10, 2017
True. However, though Reagan sent in troops in October 1983 to rescue the deposed Premier, Maurice Bishop, the US never bombed the island.
+2
level 67
Aug 11, 2017
To rescue Bishop!! Not quite! The immediate cause/justification of the invasion was the factional struggle that put Bernard Coard in power (and killed Bishop). But Bishop's PRG - and his plan to build an international airport to try to promote tourism (what a devious plot by a Caribbean government!) - was the reason that Grenada was on the USG's radar in the first place. (After asking the US, the UK, Canada, virtually every Western European state, and the Soviet Union for help, only the Cubans offered technical and financial support.) Of course, the invasion was also timed as a diversion from the bombing of a US military base in Lebanon. The soft military target and the medals were also an attempt by Reagan to rehabilitate the military in the public mind in the wake of Vietnam. But be clear - the US had ramped up its propaganda efforts against Bishop since '79.
+1
level 55
Aug 10, 2017
Strange quiz
+1
level 56
Aug 10, 2017
Once again, in 1999, there was no country named Serbia & Montenegro, it was named FR Yugoslavia at the time.
+6
level 55
Aug 10, 2017
"Bombing"? You spelled "enlightning by bringing democracy" wrong.
+2
level 75
Aug 10, 2017
You spelled enlightening wrong.
+1
level 69
Aug 10, 2017
Here's a quiz that needs another spoon in the pot. Since the status of South and North Vietnam as separate nations was, to say the least, contentious, I'd suggest allowing and showing simply "Vietnam" as an answer. A whole lot of explosives were used north and south of the 17th parallel.
+2
level 66
Aug 10, 2017
I know this doesn't count, but the US government (i.e. law enforcement) bombed the MOVE organization in Philadelphia in the 1970s. It killed a whole lot of people, especially in the resulting multi-building fire.
+2
level 62
Aug 10, 2017
I was thinking the same thing. I tried U.S., thinking that should count. It was the U.S. bombing with hostile intent--the quiz doesn't say U.S. military.
+1
level 55
Aug 10, 2017
Please add Peru, Bosnia and Niceragua https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US_Bombing_campaigns_since_1945
+1
level 69
Aug 10, 2017
You would think I would remember Bosnia/Serbia one as I was involved in the bombing of them in the Kosovo liberation mission in 99.
+1
level 68
Aug 10, 2017
Well, God sees everything...
+3
level 56
Aug 11, 2017
You shouldn't be proud of that fact.
+1
level 60
May 8, 2018
why not?
+1
level 54
Aug 10, 2017
How did I forget our little banana republic, Panama..
+1
level 43
Aug 14, 2017
What about the Dominican republic in 1965?
+1
level 67
Aug 22, 2017
I never thought I'd thank Die Hard 2 for anything, but it got me Grenada, so that's something.
+1
level 50
Sep 6, 2017
shouldnt Kosovo be here, in bombing of yugoslavia (serbia and montenegro) few Kosovar cities were bombed since lot of Serbs lived there
+1
level 13
Nov 1, 2017
Yugoslavia, USSR
+2
level 73
Nov 13, 2017
Serbia and Montenegro should certainly show as FR Yugoslavia.
+1
level 60
May 11, 2018
And the US Government has the guts to call other nations "terrorists".
+1
level 60
May 16, 2018
because they are terrorists.
+3
level 76
May 26, 2018
There's not a single one of these actions above that could accurately be described as terrorism.
+1
level 59
May 26, 2018
Tell that to the innocent civilians who have died in these non terrorism attacks.
+3
level 76
Jul 13, 2018
What good would that do? If they're dead, I mean. I'll forward dictionaries to their relatives if you want. Saying something isn't terrorism doesn't mean it's not bad. This is where most people get extremely confused about this conversation. Calling something terrorist is to describe the motivations behind and tactics employed during that action, it is not a value judgment. Killing someone some way other than through an act of terrorism doesn't make it okay.
+1
level ∞
Nov 16, 2018
When it comes to politics, many people have been mind-killed to the point where words lose all nuance. In this case @kalbahamut is correct. Terrorism has a specific meaning that is being misused by other commenters on this thread.
+1
level 50
May 20, 2019
I fail to see how some of these acts could not be described as terrorism. In the case of North Korea, for example, the bombing of irrigation dams in the last months of the war to practically destroy the country's rice destruction to gain an upper hand in peace talks. For reference, this is Encyclopedia Britannica: "Terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
+1
level 76
May 20, 2019
Gotter, the action you describe the definition you give do not match. If you are fighting a protracted total war against a country, reducing its industrial or agricultural capacity lessens its ability to continue fighting, and obviously could make leaders more willing to broker peace out of strategic considerations. Terrorists resort to terrorism usually because they are not strong enough to fight a normal war. They don't bother targeting anything of strategic value because there's no point for them. They kill random civilians to try and make those civilians afraid that they could be next and then, out of fear, put pressure on their leaders to change policy. That's definitely not what they were doing during the Korean War. Even Kissinger's carpet bombing campaign against North Vietnam can't accurately be described as terrorism because it was too extensive. They were basically trying to bomb the country out of existence. That's worse than terrorism, but it's not terrorism.
+1
level 76
May 20, 2019
simple rule of thumb: ask yourself if there could be some strategic objective *other than* instilling fear in the general populace. Delaying response time, slowing down troop movements, reducing the material capacity of the enemy to make war, destroying equipment or munitions, or actively killing enemy combatants. If it does any of those things it's probably not terrorism. If two countries are fighting a large-scale war then they are probably not engaged in acts of terrorism against each other. Targeting random civilians in that case would likely be seen as a waste of resources.
+1
level 50
May 20, 2019
I should add a caveat in that these would fit better under state terrorism, but I would say that this still fits under terrorism. While it is true that there are goals besides instilling fear in a populace with these actions, it's a known and well enough understood byproduct of these actions. It's worth noting the term when it was first created was used to describe mass terror by the Jacobins during the French Revolution, which would more accurately describe what is today called state terrorism. In case you are wondering, here is what I'm referring to in the Korean War: https://www.veteransforpeace.org/files/8514/2375/8157/B29_Operations_in_the_Korean_War-Final.pdf PS: I'm surprised you responded so quickly.
+1
level 50
May 21, 2019
I didn't think I'd get an answer from the legend himself.
+2
level 76
May 21, 2019
Just because something is scary doesn't make it terrorism. The motivations behind the act are more important than the effects of the act. Lots of things are scary. Shark attacks are scary. That doesn't make sharks terrorists. And yes I'm aware of the historical usage of the term, but language is dynamic.
+1
level 45
Jun 12, 2018
Shameful
+2
level 61
Jul 13, 2018
Love all the caveats for what counts as "bombing". Bombing on accident doesn't count. Whoops!! No loss of life doesn't count. A country's **fill in the blank** gets violently annihilated but because it doesn't technically tally on a kill county so it won't be included here. "You weren't using that atoll were you, Marshal Islands? Because I kinda sorta detonated a 500 kiloton thermonuclear warhead there after lunch yesterday just to see what it would do. Turns out it's pretty loud. Gary back there had his Kodak super 8 rolling if you wanna see what it looked like."
+2
level 76
Jul 13, 2018
You don't see a difference between weapons tests conducted in uninhabited areas and attacking a country?
+2
level 61
Jul 13, 2018
Interesting quiz. I don't think it's complete though. The description "countries whose territory has been deliberately bombed by the U.S. with hostile intent" doesn't really exclude countries like South Korea, Bosnia, Kuwait, Kosovo, etc. Their territories were bombed deliberately with hostile intent, even if the occupying forces were the targets. And South Vietnam, like Laos and Cambodia, was definitely bombed during operations against Viet Cong troops and the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
+1
level 76
May 20, 2019
The intent was not hostile toward the country whose territory was being bombed.
+1
level 48
Feb 17, 2019
Guys, little bit out of the quiz. I know that most people here are Americans but still just want to say that these are sad information. All world should live in fear because US might choose their homeland to be bombed? :(
+1
level 76
May 20, 2019
This is a ridiculous statement. Some of these bombings may not have been justified or necessary but none of them were random or arbitrary.
+1
level 42
May 20, 2019
US - always with the hammer, no clue about the consequences.
+1
level 72
May 20, 2019
I'd argue the opposite. With the superior military power of the US, I think they've shown restraint in many situations. I'm not trying to justify all these bombings or all US military actions, but "always the hammer"seems an excessive descriptor. It's not like the US goes bombing people for every little disagreement. The end of the cold war shows an uptick in the US's historically restrained foreign policy (going out on a limb with historically restrained, but I'll research it some more).
+1
level 76
May 20, 2019
They could be more restrained. But they come out favorably when compared to most other great world powers in history. The thing is, once a country or empire becomes so powerful and influential they usually see maintaining the status quo as in their interests, and at that point they usually just want to keep the peace. They'll attack perceived threats but at a certain point there's noone left that can reasonably threaten them.