Why is the dropping of the atomic bomb still controversial almost 70 years after its use?
What Guys Said 33
While it was probably the most HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE thing that anyone can do, to another, ultimately, it probably did save countless millions of lives!!
If the US would have had to invade Japan, not using that horrible weapon, millions would have been killed in a war that would have lasted at least another decade!
I wish that we could just make a wish, and make ALL of them, just go away!!
It is a horrible power to have, and with some nations, developing them, especially in unstable nations, it makes the whole world wary, unsure of our future, in the hands of a few people, some technology, and some safe-guards, in the Major powers.
I wonder about some, like North Korea, though, and their paranoia, their fear!
It would only take a few detonations to RADICALLY alter the global weather, and life, as we know it.2
Because people don't understand the importance of it. Dropping the bombs was the best decision, it saved millions of lives, but people don't know that, because they aren't taught that. They're only taught that they dropped the bombs, but aren't really taught why.
With the rise of the anti-West sentiment, these type of debates keep coming up.
Why is slavery still controversial, when it was abolished more than 100 years ago and no one from that era is still alive? Why is colonization still controversial, when it's been over decades ago? Why is the Holocaust still controversial, when it happened decades ago?
People like to keep certain things alive to push their narrative and political agenda.4
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
If someone can verify any of this, that'll be great. I possible please do so.
According to Wikipedia in both cities where the Atomic Bombs had been detonated, MOST of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizable military garrison:
For Hiroshima, 20,000 soldiers were killed BUT 70,000 to about 126,000 civilians had ALSO been killed.
For Nagasaki, 39,000 to about 80,000 people were killed. But it is not know what the percentage of those casualties are civilians.
But the reality is, no matter what, the average regular citizens end up paying the biggest price for wars.0
The controversy most likely comes from the fact that using nukes was opening pandora's box. This quora post has interesting answers:
Now, I believe it was the right choice, as the Japanese would most likely NOT have stopped.
Also, once the devastating effects of nukes were visible for all to see, it became a taboo part of popular culture, which is a really good thing. Granted, it sucks for the Japanese who got nuked, but if it hadn't happened, I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere, would have eventually thought "oh come on, nukes aren't that bad, why not use them"... see what I mean?
Plus, these bombs were absolutely TINY (16-20 kt) compared to the ones that were developed afterwards. World record is 57 Mt.
It is controversial because in civilized warfare, only armed combatants may be targets. Although sometimes, non-combatants such as civilians are collateral damage if they are present in a war zone. It is generally unacceptable to target civilian populations in modern-day warfare, so we hold the current standards to the practices used in past wars.
There are long time consequences with nuclear weapons. Look at the half-life of radioactive material. It's really long.1
I guess the argument is whether it was necessary or not, weighing the cost of using these weapons vs the cost of invading Japan.
However that was really only an issue because Japan ignored the allies probably unnecessary insistence on total and unconditional surrender.
So the stark dichotomy underlying the 'controversy' is simply false - there was a third alternative to bomb or invade and of course that was to negotiate.
Today mass indiscriminate killing of civilians including children, doctors, nurses et cetera with the destruction of schools hospitals and all infrastructure is considered a war crime.
Plus there's the question of the bomb that keeps on killing for decades.
This doesn't solve anything and there are counter arguments to all of the above.
Controversial it was and heaven help us if it stops being controversial. It could easily happen again when it stops being controversial.
Perhaps because now people can't live there for another 20 000 years and that it was the first (and hopefully last) time humans used nuclear weapons on eachother. You can also have a discussion of if it was worth it since the Japanese were already basically unconditionally surrendering.2
- Show AllShow Less
Because it permanently damaged the entire environment, ruined thousands of innocent lives in Japan, ruined future generations that were mutated by the radiation and put the whole world in a state of paranoia that the world could actually end at the push of a button.
Is that concept too much for a 17 year old or is this your homework?1
All the friends and family oh those who died the last time were not pleased...0
Well, a demonstration out in Hiroshima bay would have been a better course of action compared to the first drop being on the city itself.
Enough people would have witnessed that huge explosion to know it would have been futile to continue the war.0
Because it killed hundreds of thousands of people and may not have shortened the war all that much.2
It really isn't... Barrack Obama appoligized to Japan over it a year or two ago.
The Japs were horrible people who brainwashed their people to believe the Emporer was a God and it was an honor to die for him.
Either Nuke them or let Thousands of Americans die. Barrack the Pussy Obama would have rather had Americans die1
Cuz of how it caused so many genetic deformities in people2
The energy released from Splitting Uranium 235 is devastating0
Why is slavery controversial when it happened 200 years ago?1
The United States is the only country to use a nuke on actual people that's why0
Because of how dangerous it is.0
Japan started it0
Because in case you haven't noticed people love looking up old shit and complaining like hell0
No idea. It's obvious to most people that it was the right thing to do.0
bz human lyf matters0
Because 70 years really isn't that long ago. And it was kind of a big deal.0
The Japs are just bitter cuz' we turned 2 of their cities into ashes LOL.0
That's an excellent question. The reason is because killing millions of people tends to be rather controversial.1
Why kill so many innocent people when the international relations stem from only a few individuals at the top?
Plus, long-term effects on human lives and the environment. Catastrophic weapons.0
- More from Guys 3
What Girls Said 8
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
Because it not only killed people but those who didn't die got seriously deformed. And the effects stay in the environment for too long.
The thing is, with regular bombs, people die, but in a month or so, unless it's your relative you'd forget all about it. With atomic bombs, you'd have to shut down the whole country because everything is destroyed (food gets poisoned). For example, I don't know when Chernobyl happened but the place is still unsafe for habitation at least 10 years later.0
because it cost a lot of lives but put an effective stop to the end of WWII/sped up the end. the controversy is about whether or not those lives were worth being lost; does the end justify the means0
Because it's still a disgusting thing that humanity did. It doesn't matter how long ago it was it's still wrong.0
The effects are devastating and lethal and it is an airborne killer, you can kill a country with one drop. That's all, it takes.0
Because it was the only time in history where nuclear weapons were used and it was genocide.0
because it is so powerful0
Bcoz it killed people and generations still suffering. Still dng the same but now no atomic bombs0
Select as Most Helpful Opinion?
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.