The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Warfare

“The city was hidden by that awful cloud . . . boiling up, mushrooming, terrible and incredibly tall," said Colonel Paul Tibbets, pilot of the modified B-29 bomber that dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The bombings resulted in the death of thousands, including not only Japanese citizens, forces, and military but also American captive soldiers. In the midst of World War II the United States forced Japan to surrender by dropping bombs in the major cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They released the second atomic bomb shortly after, in Nagasaki, Japan.

The dropping of the atomic bombs was so devastating because no one saw it coming. Although, the bombs shortened the war the lives of thousands were taken including men, women, and innocent children. The United States did send the Japanese a warning stating what they were going to do, but the citizens refused to pay attention to the warnings.When the bombings took place there were a lot of different arguments that will be discussed in this paper. These events took place on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945, and about 225,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals have shared their opinions stating why they are for or against the bomb.

People always wonder if the United States decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan were the right choice. Even though the bombs killed and injured many people, Japanese civilians and Japanese soldiers. The decision to drop the bombs on Japan was the right thing to do at that time.

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first ever atomic bomb, known as "Little Boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. They dropped a second one known as "Fat Man" three days later on Nagasaki. When the first successful atomic bombs were developed by the Americans, they did not hesitate in dropping the bombs on Japan. Since then, the event has become a very controversial issue over whether or not the US was justified in dropping the bombs. But the fact is that they were not; there were alternatives to the attack, they attack violated international war laws,and they had unforeseen long term effects, As a result, the attacks were not justified.

World War II caused millions of deaths, civilian and otherwise. The death toll could have been much higher if the atomic bombs were not dropped. The United States made the correct decision to drop the atomic bombs. If the U.S. had not dropped these bombs the war could have carried on for years and taken millions more lives. If an invasion of Japan had taken place it would have likely taken years and millions of soldiers to cause surrender. No one wanted to prolong the war or cause more deaths than necessary, if the bombs had not been dropped history would likely be completely different.

What other options (if any) did the United States have (other than dropping the Atomic Bomb) to ensure that Japan would surrender without having to mount a full invasion?

The U.S. dropped an A-Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945 and another on Nagasaki, Japan 3 days later. The Japanese Army and Government already knew they were going to lose the war, but they didn’t want to surrender immediately because they feared having harsh punishments and reparations like those of the Treaty of Versailles. Sure, there could have been other options that might not have as many deaths, but there is no guarantee that there would be success in ending the war. Historians on the opposing side of this debate say that there were too many Japanese civilian deaths and that the Japanese didn’t kill as many American civilians. This may be true but if the US would have used plan B which could have been a large invasion similar to D-Day, more casualties would have been caused. The U.S. made a great decision to drop the Atomic Bombs to end World War Two.

A total of 185,000 to 209,000 people died in the combined bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (www.historyextra.com) In august 1945, president Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in an effort to end the war. A lot of people just think that because we won the war, it was a good decision, but it wasn’t really. First of all the dropping of the bomb was immoral. Secondly, we could’ve won in a different way. Lastly it started a war with Russia because they saw what the atomic bomb was capable of.

The Atomic Bomb On August 6th 1945, the American Air Force was justified on dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. President Truman had three choices for ending the war: a blockade of the island country, a military invasion, or dropping an atomic bomb. The first option was a blockade. Supplies, food and support would no longer be given to Japan. It was a slow process that would cause the people to starve to death.

Over 192,000 people in Hiroshima were killed by the atomic bomb (Hall). If the technology of the atomic bomb ended up in Hitler’s hands many more than two atomic bombs could have been dropped. Hitler attempting to obtain the atomic bomb was a big deal throughout world war two because nobody knew what he would do with the bomb. The lead scientist in Hitler’s atomic bomb project was Dr.Werner Heisenberg. Many articles have been read through and dissected in order to make sure that the paper is historically accurate and well rounded. The articles read have given me the ability to provided an educated opinion on the topic of, if it was an ethical decision by Werner Heisenberg to become the head of the German atomic bomb project. Dr. Werner Heisenberg was the lead scientist in the German war effort to create the atomic bomb. Dr.Werner Heisenberg’s decision to join the German atomic bomb program is ethically acceptable. Here are a few reasons why it is ethically acceptable for Heisenberg to create the atomic bomb. Heisenberg is from Germany so helping out the Nazi's would be staying loyal to his country.

“The human body can absorb just so much radiation until it falls apart because the very cells that you need to heal are dying from the radiation poisoning.” says Shiya Ribowsky, a forensic medical investigator in the “Coroner’s Report: Atomic Bomb”. This is what the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to go through after the United States dropped two atomic bombs over the cities. Everything in that area was ultimately destroyed. Lives were lost, and those who were still living were left severely injured. Despite many warnings, the American government decided that it was prudent to use nuclear force during WWII. It is indisputable that the atomic bombing left irreversible damage. Indeed, the cities could be rebuilt, but the lives that were lost were gone forever. Yet, the American

The development of nuclear weapons which allowed immense destruction in a large area means that more people can be affected during war. It is no longer a sword fight between one person and the other; it is a fight of the most strategic, intelligent way of fighting that wins the war, and the loss of the lives on many innocent civilians seems to be the

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can demolish a whole city, potentially killing millions, and exposed the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects. According to the UNODA- United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2011), “Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare- in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945-about 22,000 reportedly remains in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date.” Nuclear weapons have been viewed as a threat to peace by world leaders. There have been debates of whether to let Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, leaders all around the world along with Liberals believe that it is a threat to peace and should limit the spread whereas neo realist have another belief that nuclear weapon can make the world a peaceful place. Because states would fear to attack each other. For example the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and cold war- there were only threats and war did not happen because of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban missile crisis has frequently been portrayed as the only time where the world stood in the point of nuclear war between the superpowers. This is an example of how nuclear weapons were used to threaten the rival. Another examples would be that of India and Pakistan before they acquire nuclear weapon , they fought three bloody wars after having their independence but since 1998, after acquiring

There is a huge expense in maintaining and building the nuclear arms that we use for deterrence. Nuclear information is secret, taking great amounts of money and time, to research and keep it confidential. Power is gained from the research and development, which is definitely worth the expense. The great amounts of money spent on nuclear technology help ensure the security of the people of the United States. It takes huge amounts of money to have the edge in nuclear technology. However, nuclear deterrence is even cheaper than war. The cost of building, operating, and maintaining nuclear weapons is only $26.7 billion per year (Hellman). "This is significantly less than the cost of the 1991 [Persian Gulf] war, which came to nearly $80 billion" (Dobbs). Deterrence is economically and politically intelligent.

As previously stated, the reason two superpowers like Russia and the United States long for nuclear weaponry is down to the fact that frankly, they are paranoid. If you can stockpile most of the nuclear warheads in the world then surely nobody could ever harm your country. This is certainly not the case. By having so many dangerous weapons you are not only a bigger threat to terrorists but also a huge threat to your countries morality. If the leaders of a country say that it is ok to use nuclear weapons to threaten enemies then what’s to say that civilians do not do the same thing to a smaller scale? In the beginning atomic bombs were created to end the war and to save numerous amounts of lives. By this, I mean that multitudinous lives were saved due to the fact that when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese surrendered straight away. If they hadn’t surrendered then the war possibly would have gone on for a lot longer. In contrast to this, look at what has become of the nuclear weapons now. Instead of saving lives, atomic bombs are now kept with the intention of unnecessary mass murder. What makes the monsters that enforce the use of nuclear weaponry any different from Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin? Even though the atomic bombs are not in use at this moment, anyone or any government in possession of these weapons have the intention to inflict large amounts of pain on vast