The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Weapons

Whether the use of the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II was justified, we will never know. However, the amount of time spent on discussing the use and effect of the bomb seems to be nonexistent. If they talked about the bomb there was no major argument against using the bomb; with that came mystery because they did not understand the bomb. There were factors that they used as an excuse to use the bomb, but these were in the background and later added to make the argument seem more one-sided, in their favor. Whether the use of the atomic bomb proved helpful or not is up to debate. The atomic bomb changed the world, and given the evidence, the use of the bomb was not talked about in detail except for when and where to use it.

On August 6th, 1945, the first atomic bomb to ever be used in the history of the world was dropped on Hiroshima. The result of this bomb killed roughly 80,000 people from the blast itself, and tens of thousands more due to radiation poisoning. After a few days passed, the United States dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, and threatened to drop another if the Japanese did not surrender. The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to the Japanese surrender to the United States, removing them from the war. While the use of this bomb was likely necessary at the time, was it an ethical decision? The lives that were affected from this blast were not just of those who experienced it, generations later, people who weren’t even alive at the time were faced with trauma as well. With that being said, the dropping of the bomb might have been necessary, but it was an unethical decision, even though the Japanese made it perfectly clear that they will fight until the last civilian.

The year was 1945. World War II was nearly over. Germany had been defeated and the allied forces were sure to win the war. The only unsure thing was how many lives would be lost in defeating Japan. The United States decided to drop the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. On that day the Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. Three days later the United States dropped "Fat Boy" on Nagasaki. 240,000 civilians, mostly women and children, lost their lives on these two days. On August 14, 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. Was it necessary?

In addition, when one country obtains nuclear weapons, it’s neighboring country argues for their right to protect their citizens with their own nuclear arsenal. The decision of dropping the bomb in 1945 accelerated a rising fear and led to further conflict as countries chased in the pursuit of dangerous nuclear weapons. In addition, it drastically weakened the United States. According to Truman, even though the Japanese leadership was ruthless and merciless, the United States being known as the “leader of the world for common welfare” (Truman) should not have dropped the bomb in the first place. The use of nuclear weapons diminished the trust between the United States and other nations and it could ultimately create an environment that may lead to many irrational decisions with extreme consequences. “If we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced” (J.R. Oppenheimer). Having the reputation of using nuclear weapons and bombs put the United States in an uncompromising and very vulnerable

The Atomic Bomb should be used very strategically and tactically in order to ensure a minimal loss of American life and a quick end to the war. Japan will not surrender until defeat meets them face to face. Japan’s women and children are jumping off of cliffs so that they can not be captured by the Allies. The Japanese soldiers are kamikaze bombing our American soldiers. Russia is preparing for an invasion into Eastern Asia. This madness must come to a halt. The United States needs to drop one Atomic Bomb on an outlying city of the capital, Tokyo. This will wake up the Japanese Emperor, Hirohito, and make for a quick surrender. We, however, cannot utterly destroy Japan with a second Atomic Bomb. We must remember that this is 1945 and

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.

Ever since 1945, when the first nuclear bombs were dropped on hiroshimba and nagaskia, the debate has raged about nuclear weapons. Despite no country using them since then, the tention came to a head in the 1980s, with the cold war and britain puttimg in nuclear defence plans. This panic spawned trident, the programme for procurement of nuclear weapons for the uk, and a programe thst is right next door to js. These weapoms are the barrier between us and the war, and they help us to be seen as a world power. So why would we want to get rid of them? While nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used,they still give us extra saftey and security for he uk, and i feel that that is something thag should not be compromised.

In the year 1945 the global theater saw the Second World War come to an end. Germany surrendered in May, and the Allies began to focus on laying siege to Japan. By June the Untied States army forced them back to their native island, yet the Japanese kept fighting despite their hopeless situation. On August 6 an American atom bomb codenamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima, and three days later “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki. The official purpose of these bombs was to minimize casualties, yet there is more to the Manhattan Project that implies other motives.

The creation of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were not originally intended as a War-Ending weapon, far from that. Regardless of the reason for its creation, it has left a profound mark on humanity as a whole. While in its infancy the fission weapons were able to destroy small cities, but only after a decade a tested fusion bomb was 750 times more powerful. These weapons of mass destruction ended the war, but not without consequences.

Should it be allowed to have atomic weapons even if they could change the world?

Today it is 2017 to judge the mind set of the people in 1945 by the standards of our modern day is not only ahistorical, it is worthless. President Truman and his advisors made the only logical decision they could’ve made, considered that it was of World War II, it wasn’t really much of a decision at all. There are usually three arguments marshalled against the dropping of the A-bomb in 1945. First, that the dropping of the A-bomb against Japan was racist; second, that the bomb made no difference; and lastly, that it was done just for political effect that had more to do with Stalin and the Soviet Union than with the war against the Japanese. These objections make little sense when put up against counterfactual thinking about American alternatives.

Nuclear weapons are the most inhumane weapons invented. In the article “The Moral Instinct” Steven Pinker discusses the use of nuclear weapons, which has caused a controversy among individuals and their morals. In John Bergers, “Hiroshima” he also speaks about the use of nuclear weapons that have resulted in catastrophic damages of the city in Japan. Nuclear weapons have led to questioning the nature of science as seen in Richard Feynman “The Value of Science.” Nuclear weapons should be abolished.

Manufacturing a nuclear weapon is a very complex and challenging process. It requires the production of nuclear materials- plutonium, uranium-233 or enriched uranium-235. These nuclear materials are crucial because they can sustain nuclear chain reactions which then release a massive amount of energy in small period of time, causing a nuclear explosion. Getting the nuclear material isn’t the hard part, but manufacturing the highly enriched uranium-235 from the more common uranium-238, is what makes the manufacturing of the nuclear weapons next to impossible; especially for terrorist organizations.

Summary: Tensions with the US and North korea have everyone worried about whether or not we will get hit with actual nuclear weapons. But could we possibly take down the nuclear warheads before they even get close to the US? One possible technology that people have been talking about over the years to take down a nuclear missile is a figurative "sheild" of other types of missiles used to shoot down the nuclear ICBM shot at the US. However many experts mention that this system is too flawed and could lead to a missile getting through the "safe" shield of missiles. The first attempts at making a nuclear defense system happened in the 1950s when ICBMs were first created and realized as a major threat. Because of this, the US rushed to defend us

On August 6 1945, the United States revealed the atomic bomb, a weapon more powerful than any preceding it. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending World War II, and resulting in over one hundred thousand deaths (Groves). Although nuclear weapons have not been used in combat since, these weapons continue to be developed. Thousands of nuclear weapons are currently operational, many with over one hundred times the power of the bombs dropped on Japan in World War II, and the number of countries with nuclear weapons has grown over the past decades (Kimball; Smith). There has been some debate about whether current attempts