The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Was the US right to drop the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945?
My opinion- YES.
Discuss:-
My opinion- YES.
Discuss:-
Page:
Ok, here's my argument on the atomic bomb. I personally think it's a good thing as it reduces the risks of war in our world. Here's why..
On August 6 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This single uranium device killed 100,000 people. The Japanese were startled by this new creation, as they had never seen one before and had no idea how to stop it. When the Japanese did not surrender, a second was dropped, this time on Nagasaki on August 9. The bomb, that used Plutonium rather than the uranium in the first bomb killed 40,000 this time. With no choice but to give in, Japan agreed to the US terms of surrender on August 14.
Atomic Bombs are nowadays called nuclear weapons and are of two different types - fission and fusion. Fission weapons were those first atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan and are the only type to have been used in war. Fusion bombs, also known as hydrogen or thermonuclear bombs were vastly more powerful then fission bombs. They were developed in the early 1950s and have yet to be used in war and in my opinion never will be.
The first use of the atomic bomb may have been very controversial because of what it did to Japan, however since as put a stop to major wars between major nations. As it stopped the war between Japan and the USA, it has also arguably stopped any other wars in the twentieth century in the second world wars aftermath.
Atomic bombs reduce the risk of war as people fear of its possible use rather than it’s use. An atomic bomb only needs to exist to stop war, rather than to be used. Nations are scared of the damaging effects of an atomic bomb, and as a result are much more cautious about what they do. Dictatorships and other similar governments that are usually associated with the beginning of wars, such as Hitler, Stalin and now more recently Saddam Hussein are nowadays more aware of what their actions may lead to. Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq is very anti-U.S. and may easily have started a war if it wasn’t for nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons of the U.S are more than capable of destroying a country he has built himself, and Hussein is more than aware of what an attack on the US could lead to. War is not as attractive nowadays as it might have used to be. Many nations, who before the nuclear weapon, would have seen war as a way of getting land, wealth or an expanded empire, no longer desire to start wars because of the possible outcomes of their actions.
However, the nuclear weapon is still not perfect for stopping all wars. Many countries without nuclear weapons will still fight between each other and in some wars it is possible to find a country to blame. Terrorism has taken over where wars between nations have finished off. Terrorism is harder to stop, as the blame cannot be directed on a single country, but rather a group of people. This group of people is not threatened by the nuclear missile, as if the country they delve in is bombed, the country that bombed it would face incredible criticism, as many innocent people would die. No government would surely be stupid enough to do such a thing. There is also the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine, where a nuclear weapon cannot be used as they are fighting for a country that they will not want to bomb and if they were to use one they would wipe out both sides involved! There is also a danger of the nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands. Currently there is much fear that the Al-Quieda terrorist group could get hold of a nuclear weapon and release it on an innocent nation for their fanatical beliefs. There is also the fact that other countries are intimidated by nations with lots of nuclear weapons. They live in fear of these nations who can abuse their power they get from their nuclear weapons to bully other nations.
If one is ever used, it would be responded by another and then another, and our world could be destroyed.
However the fact is that if anyone is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon on another country, the end result would be catastrophic as the country being attacked would retaliate by attacking the other country with a nuclear weapon.
Whether dropping that bomb in 1945 was right at the time, I'm not sure. However, certaintly on the long term it was one of the best decisions ever made. Maybe not for those people's lives it took but certaintly for future generations...
On August 6 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This single uranium device killed 100,000 people. The Japanese were startled by this new creation, as they had never seen one before and had no idea how to stop it. When the Japanese did not surrender, a second was dropped, this time on Nagasaki on August 9. The bomb, that used Plutonium rather than the uranium in the first bomb killed 40,000 this time. With no choice but to give in, Japan agreed to the US terms of surrender on August 14.
Atomic Bombs are nowadays called nuclear weapons and are of two different types - fission and fusion. Fission weapons were those first atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan and are the only type to have been used in war. Fusion bombs, also known as hydrogen or thermonuclear bombs were vastly more powerful then fission bombs. They were developed in the early 1950s and have yet to be used in war and in my opinion never will be.
The first use of the atomic bomb may have been very controversial because of what it did to Japan, however since as put a stop to major wars between major nations. As it stopped the war between Japan and the USA, it has also arguably stopped any other wars in the twentieth century in the second world wars aftermath.
Atomic bombs reduce the risk of war as people fear of its possible use rather than it’s use. An atomic bomb only needs to exist to stop war, rather than to be used. Nations are scared of the damaging effects of an atomic bomb, and as a result are much more cautious about what they do. Dictatorships and other similar governments that are usually associated with the beginning of wars, such as Hitler, Stalin and now more recently Saddam Hussein are nowadays more aware of what their actions may lead to. Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq is very anti-U.S. and may easily have started a war if it wasn’t for nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons of the U.S are more than capable of destroying a country he has built himself, and Hussein is more than aware of what an attack on the US could lead to. War is not as attractive nowadays as it might have used to be. Many nations, who before the nuclear weapon, would have seen war as a way of getting land, wealth or an expanded empire, no longer desire to start wars because of the possible outcomes of their actions.
However, the nuclear weapon is still not perfect for stopping all wars. Many countries without nuclear weapons will still fight between each other and in some wars it is possible to find a country to blame. Terrorism has taken over where wars between nations have finished off. Terrorism is harder to stop, as the blame cannot be directed on a single country, but rather a group of people. This group of people is not threatened by the nuclear missile, as if the country they delve in is bombed, the country that bombed it would face incredible criticism, as many innocent people would die. No government would surely be stupid enough to do such a thing. There is also the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine, where a nuclear weapon cannot be used as they are fighting for a country that they will not want to bomb and if they were to use one they would wipe out both sides involved! There is also a danger of the nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands. Currently there is much fear that the Al-Quieda terrorist group could get hold of a nuclear weapon and release it on an innocent nation for their fanatical beliefs. There is also the fact that other countries are intimidated by nations with lots of nuclear weapons. They live in fear of these nations who can abuse their power they get from their nuclear weapons to bully other nations.
If one is ever used, it would be responded by another and then another, and our world could be destroyed.
However the fact is that if anyone is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon on another country, the end result would be catastrophic as the country being attacked would retaliate by attacking the other country with a nuclear weapon.
Whether dropping that bomb in 1945 was right at the time, I'm not sure. However, certaintly on the long term it was one of the best decisions ever made. Maybe not for those people's lives it took but certaintly for future generations...
Semajal wrote:
> atomic bombs are bad
>
> hydrogen bombs are worse
>
> they were wrong to drop those bombs. The pilot and crew in the plane
> most likely had no idea what would happen.
>
> the pentagon now has a $1,000,000,000,000 a year funding i believe.
>
> And what will it be spent on?
>
> researching new ways to kill people.
The West aren't the only ones who do this! If other nations had the money we would most likely be dead now.
> atomic bombs are bad
>
> hydrogen bombs are worse
>
> they were wrong to drop those bombs. The pilot and crew in the plane
> most likely had no idea what would happen.
>
> the pentagon now has a $1,000,000,000,000 a year funding i believe.
>
> And what will it be spent on?
>
> researching new ways to kill people.
The West aren't the only ones who do this! If other nations had the money we would most likely be dead now.
Semajal wrote:
> the pentagon now has a $1,000,000,000,000 a year funding i believe.
>
> And what will it be spent on?
>
> researching new ways to kill people.
Well, at least it keeps them out of mischief
> the pentagon now has a $1,000,000,000,000 a year funding i believe.
>
> And what will it be spent on?
>
> researching new ways to kill people.
Well, at least it keeps them out of mischief
atomic bombs are bad
hydrogen bombs are worse
they were wrong to drop those bombs. The pilot and crew in the plane most likely had no idea what would happen.
the pentagon now has a $1,000,000,000,000 a year funding i believe.
And what will it be spent on?
researching new ways to kill people.
hydrogen bombs are worse
they were wrong to drop those bombs. The pilot and crew in the plane most likely had no idea what would happen.
the pentagon now has a $1,000,000,000,000 a year funding i believe.
And what will it be spent on?
researching new ways to kill people.
So you know nothing about the second world war and how it ended.
Oh dear - what is happening to our education system ?
Go and read a history book or look on some websites and then come back and post a sensible answer...
Oh dear - what is happening to our education system ?
Go and read a history book or look on some websites and then come back and post a sensible answer...
Protoss wrote:
> Was the US right to drop the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
> August 1945?
>
> My opinion- YES.
>
> Discuss:-
Depends what they did really, i adont know am i the only one who dont know?
> Was the US right to drop the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
> August 1945?
>
> My opinion- YES.
>
> Discuss:-
Depends what they did really, i adont know am i the only one who dont know?
SHEEPY wrote:
> The war would have ended anyway
Only with a land invasion, like seen in Normandy. Enough died in the D-Day landings (and a few in the practices staged in England) so think how many more would have died trying to do the same thing in Japan - alot further away from America than France was to England. It would have been suicide to try to "do" D-Day in Japan. So bombing was a far easier option.
Also, the Japanese government refused to surrender, despite fighting a losing battle. They didn't even surrender after Hiroshima had been bombed - they held out and still refused to give up, despite America threatening to drop another bomb. Only after the second bomb had been dropped did the government give up.
It's easy to look back and say they were wrong to kill so many civilians, but at the time it was the best option available to them. Why send thousands of your troops into enemy territory and risk their lives when you have the option for one plane with one bomb to wipe out a city with minimal risk to your own forces.
> The war would have ended anyway
Only with a land invasion, like seen in Normandy. Enough died in the D-Day landings (and a few in the practices staged in England) so think how many more would have died trying to do the same thing in Japan - alot further away from America than France was to England. It would have been suicide to try to "do" D-Day in Japan. So bombing was a far easier option.
Also, the Japanese government refused to surrender, despite fighting a losing battle. They didn't even surrender after Hiroshima had been bombed - they held out and still refused to give up, despite America threatening to drop another bomb. Only after the second bomb had been dropped did the government give up.
It's easy to look back and say they were wrong to kill so many civilians, but at the time it was the best option available to them. Why send thousands of your troops into enemy territory and risk their lives when you have the option for one plane with one bomb to wipe out a city with minimal risk to your own forces.
zaphod beeblebrox wrote:
>
> an investigation after the war found that the nazis were quite far off
> from acheiving a nuclear weapon
you misunderstand me, it's not a nuclear device. It's a rocket with about a tonne of explosives strapped to it which could be fired from Germany and hit say... Australia.
>
> an investigation after the war found that the nazis were quite far off
> from acheiving a nuclear weapon
you misunderstand me, it's not a nuclear device. It's a rocket with about a tonne of explosives strapped to it which could be fired from Germany and hit say... Australia.
One good thing that came of it is that the world saw what would would happen if a nuclear device was exploded.
Forget all the testing on remote atolls etc. These two bombs actually killled and maimed thousands of innocent people and caused untold genetic mutations etc.
That information alone has stopped more nuclear missles being used at various times since then. How easy would it have been to drop 2 or 3 nuclear warheads in Afghanistan ? The country would have been dead and unenterable for many years to come but no one would have got away.
At least our leaders - however stupid they maybe - will stop short of this, let's just hope none of the tinpot countries manage to develop their own because though the devestation on 9.11 was bad enough, how would it have been if bin laden had got hold of a nuclear device as well ?
Forget all the testing on remote atolls etc. These two bombs actually killled and maimed thousands of innocent people and caused untold genetic mutations etc.
That information alone has stopped more nuclear missles being used at various times since then. How easy would it have been to drop 2 or 3 nuclear warheads in Afghanistan ? The country would have been dead and unenterable for many years to come but no one would have got away.
At least our leaders - however stupid they maybe - will stop short of this, let's just hope none of the tinpot countries manage to develop their own because though the devestation on 9.11 was bad enough, how would it have been if bin laden had got hold of a nuclear device as well ?
Tequila Sunset wrote:
> Protoss can you please stop posting these 'DIY' topics where you write
> one sentence and expect everyone else to do the work for you - it's
> quite probable you do this to get answers to your history essays
> etc.
>
> Germany were very close to getting a missile that went out of the
> atmsophere and re-entered in WWII, this would've kicked the nuclear
> bomb's theoretical a$s (why is a type of donkey censured??) as it
> could be targeted to be within tens of metres of the target and be
> fired from the heart of Germany. They probably would've could it the
> V3, it would've been game over for the allies if the project had got
> off the ground for the Nazis...
an investigation after the war found that the nazis were quite far off from acheiving a nuclear weapon
> Protoss can you please stop posting these 'DIY' topics where you write
> one sentence and expect everyone else to do the work for you - it's
> quite probable you do this to get answers to your history essays
> etc.
>
> Germany were very close to getting a missile that went out of the
> atmsophere and re-entered in WWII, this would've kicked the nuclear
> bomb's theoretical a$s (why is a type of donkey censured??) as it
> could be targeted to be within tens of metres of the target and be
> fired from the heart of Germany. They probably would've could it the
> V3, it would've been game over for the allies if the project had got
> off the ground for the Nazis...
an investigation after the war found that the nazis were quite far off from acheiving a nuclear weapon
Page: