Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

Atomic Bombs- A little too extreme

   Even though bombing was required to end the war, the US could have dropped fire bombs which would have had a similar effect in terms of death tolls and destruction to the infrastructure, but would not have lead to the after effects of an atomic bomb, like the contamination of their water sources and crop, and radiation poisoning. It also lead to other countries developing WMD and nuclear missile programs. This has become a huge threat to World Peace and had the US not played the "Atomic Bomb card", we wouldn't be facing this threat today.
Anonymous says2013-05-07T15:36:12.600
I do think they should have not dropped it because so many People should have not died it was not right
Anonymous says2013-05-09T21:23:21.470
Technically the U.S didn't play the atomic bomb card first, it was Germany. The Nazi's had been studying nuclear fusion since the mid 30's and into the early 40's. When the U.S was notified by scientists in Europe who refused to work on the project for the Nazis, as you should know the U.S created the Manhattan Project in 1942 in response and the Soviets were also trying to make atomic weapons. So either way there still would have been a nuclear arms race, but the U.S wouldn't hold the title of being the only country to use atomic weapons on a civilian population
Anonymous says2013-05-17T11:57:14.943
And they knew nothing of radiation, or i'm sure they wouldn't of dropped it or even tested it in new mexico, but i still support it, because it was an effective way in ending the war
Anonymous says2013-05-20T16:53:31.203
Fire bombs would not have the same effect, in fact if fire bombs were dropped by US, why in the world wouldn't Japan fire back considering almost every nation had access to them. I don't think you understand what war is about.
Anonymous says2013-05-22T17:46:49.357
Um... Guys, seriously? Japan had already unofficial lay surrendered. The bombing was simply a way to show off for other countries, and the U.S. Knew it wouldn't have another chance to use it on a target for a while. Germany had surrendered, Japan's military lay in ruins, and the nation itself faced fathom. The soviets were scheduled to invade shortly after the bombings took place, and the U.S. Still dropped bombs on 2 densely populated civilian cities. The United States just wanted to, once again, claim responsibility for ending a world war after showing up late.
Anonymous says2013-05-29T01:01:14.093
We had been firebombing Japan for months already and had done no good, really. The thing is, Japan did not surrender fortwo whole days after we bombed Hiroshima; we gave them plenty of time, but they refused. I understand why, of course - national pride. While I do not like the bomb, I do think that it was that little something that pushed Japan to an uneasy surrender. Anything else is simply hypothesizing, theories, ideas that can never be proven.
Anonymous says2013-07-08T15:41:15.937
Think about it, we used one Atomic bomb on them and they still didn't give up? What would firebombs do?
themanbeard says2013-11-11T14:12:51.460
Unofficial means not official which means......... NOT DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!! And they were a small threat still.
MariahMcCallister says2014-04-26T01:53:19.937
I agree with you about how the atomic bombs were a little bit too extreme. The United States did not absolutely need to use atomic bombs as the means to end the war against Japan. I also agree with you about how if the United States never used the atomic bombs in the first place, then other countries wouldn't have figured out how to make their own and threaten to use them against use during the argument going on right now about Peace. If the United States chose to use another way to end the war instead of Atomic bombs, then I agree with you that if the situation with the atomic bombs had been something more like fire bombs, the after effects wouldn't have been nearly as bad as they were with the atomic bombs that were originally used in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Therefore, I thought that your posting was very helpful to allow me to have more of an understanding of a different approach to what had happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
samaking523 says2015-04-15T02:39:46.500
WE DID DO THAT RESEARCH UR HISTORY BEFORE U COMMENT. Our fire bombing campaign had killed even more people than the atomic bombs to be honest.
jrgillespie says2015-04-29T02:56:23.467
Firebombing didn't work when we used it previous to using the atomic bomb.
StubbornPhantom says2019-05-31T06:36:14.507
I completely disagree with the last part. If the US hadn't used the Nuclear Bomb, The USSR would have still used it, As they had been developing their own during that time. Nuclear weapons aren't a threat to World Peace, They actually help World Peace. They are a deterrent against all potential enemies. Mutually Assured Destruction guarantees that countries owning nuclear weapons probably won't be invaded. Without the nuclear bomb, The US and USSR wouldn't have hesitated to go to war, And there would have been a lot more conventional wars.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.