Most Helpful Guy
Don't feel like doing your homework, eh?
It's controversial because many believe that Japan was on the brink of surrendering to the Allies and there would be been no need either for the use of the bomb on civilians nor a bloody and costly 'conventional' invasion of the Japanese home islands.
It would also be argued that Japan's defeat was inevitable and so the Allies were in fact preparing for the post war world, one in which they were petrified of the size and might of the Soviet military. So, they decided to demonstrate their new super weapon as a show of strength and a warning to Stalin.
Those in favour of the attacks also felt that unless the attacks were destructive, nobody would see the weapon as an effective deterrent, and so Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both largely untouched by bombing up until that point) were picked as targets so the true extent of the devastation caused would be apparent.
So you have the people of the cities being essentially used as test subjects for political and scientific ends. Nuclear weapons cause a variety of horrendous injuries to those who survive the initial blast.2
- Show AllShow Less
Most Helpful Girl
A. Because the weapon's uniqueness makes it stand out. The number of casualties was huge, but, sadly, still comparable to the deaths caused by conventional raids. The most comparable raid in terms of damage is the March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo, which probably killed over 100,000. Another ) in) famous raid is the July 1943 attack on Hamburg that killed over 40,000. In both cases the damage was done by a horrifying firestorm, but hundreds of bombers were needed.
B. Because of controversy about why it was used and who knew what when. This is where my knowledge gets shaky, so I'd strongly suggest finding at least one good history book, preferably more.0