Atomic Bomb?

Question

When it comes to Military,political and Economic reasons, why was the Atomic bomb a bad thing?
I'm having a debate in history and Im having trouble finding reasons relating to the Economy, Military and Politics.

Can anyone help?

Answer 1

What do you mean?

Of course the Atom Bomb was a bad thing. It's the first weapon that can destroy all life on Earth! But politically, economically, and militarily it was a good thing because it was inevitable after Einstein & E=MC^2.

Answer 2

The bomb has created A waste problem that still hasn't been solved and it cost a fortune to store and guard the stuff. It also drew off funding from more important military and social projects that actually would be used in places like Korea and Vietnam. The bomb also gave the pentagon the idea that conventional war was a thing of the past and that all future wars would be nuclear at least until Vietnam came along and then it finally sunk in that nuclear war was not going to happen. However the damage had been done tank and airplane development all suffered from the bomb. The navies carriers were threatened with being replaced by missiles and bombers. As to politics the bomb only intensified the fear of communism to the point that many liberties were lost and still haven't been returned and the govt became an ultra secret place doing whatever it does in the backrooms far from the public eye. This leads to whole sale corruption and fraud as the politicians became impervious to responsibility.

Answer 3

Can't help you.

Military: The Bomb forced the Cold War to be fought indirectly, though it took a long time, the alternative would have been another world war.

Political: The Bomb placed the nuclear powers in positions of global leadership, leading to a UN with at least some influence, and making peaceful relations (however tense) wiser than open warfare.

Economic: The Bomb (and it's delivery systems) produced numerous spin-off technologies that greatly benefited the economies of the developed world. Microcomputers and the internet, for instance, would likely never have been developed but for The Bomb.

Answer 4

The invention of the atomic bomb was inevitable, good or bad.

Military: When the bomb was invented, people didn't understand all the dangers of radiation. Horrible atrocities were committed because of this ignorance. US soldiers were used in nuclear detonation experiments aimed at developing tactics to operate in nuclear environments--with predictably awful results. On the positive side, the atomic bombs ended World War 2. Tens of millions of lives would have been lost if we had invaded mainland Japan. Around 225,000 died in the two bombings (still a huge number), but that was far fewer that would have died in a US invasion of Japan.

Political: politically, the bomb was just another headache for any Administration to deal with. Sure, its a powerful weapon, but you'd better have a really damned good reason for using it (reference Truman and MacArthur in Korea). There is also the possibility that your enemies will acquire it and use it against you.

Economics: I really can't think of any economic repercussions of atomic bombs (unless its your country that gets bombed). All kinds of aids to industry were developed as a result of atomic technology.

Not as much as I would have liked to give you, but its the best I can do on short notice. Hope it helps some.

Answer 5

Well the Atomic bomb was horrible for Japan...

here are the reasons relating to the
Economy - We put the Japense economy out of commission because of the war until the 80s

, Military- We destroyed their once feared military, after they surrendered (because of the bombs) they could not build up their military without approval from other nations.

Politics- we got rid of their feared empire...

Now all these things were bad for Japan at the time however it did turn out good.. with the new democracy in place instead of turning all their money into military they used it for automobiles and consumer electronics and many great inventions have now come through there, and they are now a economic power house

Answer 6

A simple answer:

Negotiate or Die.

More wordy answer:

In a world where the major powers have enough nuclear capability to kill each other and everyone else, resolving political or economic problems through open warfare becomes severely problematic. Instead, warfare is prepared for (spurring research and development) and avoided by utilizing diplomacy and economic exchange. Under this cover, economic interdependence can be fostered, sometimes through desperation, that can further decrease the probability of open warfare and enhance diplomacy.

An example of this could be Europe.

A traditional battleground, post WWII Europe transitioned from large numbers of occupying forces immediately after the war to economic powerhouses both out of economic desperation to allow these countries to support their own defense forces and under probably the longest period of peace that Europe has ever had (although, admittedly, under constant threat of warfare). Economic power gradually produced more political influence.

Unless the Europeans revert to their traditional nationalistic tendencies instead of the economic and political interdependency they have today (fostered by the Cold War), they will probably continue to have peace, power, and economic stability.

Answer 7

The threat of nuclear global suicide has hung over every political policy decision since 1945. If conventional warfare was the only means of settling differences, do you think the Korean War would've ended any differently, or were we afraid of a nuclear confrontation with China or the USSR and thus a stalemate ensued. Would Vietnam turned out differently without the threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over our heads. How did the threat of nuclear confrontation effect Cold War Europe, the Berlin Wall? The arms race meant fewer resources devoted to health care and other social services.

Answer 8

Why not be a little different and try to find the facts about Atomic weapons rather than looking for the typical "the BOMB is bad" stuff?

One interesting fact is that if you detonated all the atomic weapons in the world you would not generate the energy, and particulate matter that Mt. St. Hellens produced.

Another is that the idea of a Nuclear winter caused by atomic weapons is bunkcum.

Don't believe me? Look it up

Answer 9

Military: Its a huge weapon that has very small and portable important parts. This makes for a wonderfully compact weapon that can kill an alarming number of people. To a degree, this negates modern warfare.

Economic: Regulation is increadibly expensive. All dismantled ones must be accounted for and the parts that cant be reused or destroyed must be stored at gov't expense for years.

Political: Sudden "power" for any nation that can either buy, steal, or research their way to the weapons. A strong army is no longer required or even preferable to force others to listen to you.

Unfortuantely the same arguments apply to Chemical weapons and such, so youre going to need lots more.

Good luck!

Answer 10

Military -- This super weapon cannot be countered, it presents a challenge for a military defending a nation. Only the MAD tactic can effectively ward off a nuclear attack by threatening to retaliate in the same fashion.

Political -- The weapon's payload is a massive genocide, surely any political body that was responsible for its deployment is going to face severe scrutiny for using it.