Cons of nuking Japan? debate on the pros and cons of nuking Japan.i have cons. What were the cons.?

Question

ME and my class are having a debate on the nuking of Japan. I have the cons. i need hard evidence. please back up with info.

Answer 1

we killed thousands of civilians, rebuilding the areas of the bomb blasts would cost a lot of time and money, the global reaction to it was uncertain

Answer 2

The only cons to the bombing of the two Japanese cities were the heavy death tolls. This will never be seen as totally justified by the world. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on their own volition. Don't flip a bull in the nutsac if you ain't prepared to be gored, son. One of the biggest "pro's" that you should mention is that since this event, Japan has become a totally peaceful nation. No more bombs. No more wars. Only self-defense.

Answer 3

The best 'con':

We only had enough U235 to make 1 bomb, and enough Plutonium to make 2 bombs.

We tested one Plutonium bomb at Alamogordo, NM, so we only had enough material for the bombs that were actually dropped on Japan.

Had Japan called our "bluff" (even after Hirosh, and Nagas.) we'd be "up-a-creek without a paddle". It would have taken another few weeks, to months, to produce enough material for another bomb.

Some people really didn't want to blow all the nuke material we had in inventory.

.

Answer 4

There were no cons to nuking Japan. They started a war, were barbaric to the extreme with anyone not Japanese. They IMHO earned those bombs and should be glad we didn't hit Tokyo.

Answer 5

the cons of the nuclear bombs dropped on japan were the immediate destruction of 2 technologically advanced citys that would have been of value to the allies if kept intact. the theoretical worst case scenario is a nuclear cloud swept across the pacific to the us.

Answer 6

Because invading Japan would have led to MORE deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Study the war plan to invade the Japanese mainland (Codenamed Downfall)...the alternative to the A-bombings...and would have resulted in millions dead.

Answer 7

The 'cons' are the arguments you must present to prove this was not a good thing to do.

This web site might help you put some of the pieces together.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/post-cold-war/smithsonian-controversy/enola-gay-exhibit-draft-final-unit-6.htm

Good luck :-)

Answer 8

2 Major lines.

1) How good are 'we' killing tenthousands of non-combatants?

2) Does fallout ring a bell? Nuking anything on this planet gets back to you, weather permitting.

***Ricardo is a stupid ***. Remeber 9-11? Those people reasoned the same way you just did.***

Answer 9

the execs. It feels sturdy, it truly is sturdy for you, It keeps you from having blue balls, it truly is sturdy workout. The cons: that is going to reason you to bypass blind, that is going to reason you to bypass to hell, merely kidding, There aren't any Cons.

Answer 10

there were no cons