was the atomic bomb a good choice?

Question

pros and cons
im a 4th grader so some make sure i can understand it

Answer 1

Hello,

Pros;

1) They ended the war with Japan very quickly.

2) Possibly saved more than 500,000 American lives that would have been lost in taking and holding Japan.

3) Because of their invention we will never have conventional wars on such a grand scale as WWI and WWII again.

Cons:

1) Once other countries got the secret there was and has been the possibility of mutual destruction.

2) The long term medical and health effects on the people who had been bombed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

3) The two cities were not significant military targets; one of them only chosen because of weather conditions.

Cheers,

Michael Kelly

Answer 2

It was a bad choice for all the wrong reasons.

Officially the bomb was released to force the Japanese into surrender because the US otherwise risked a long continuation of the war with many (gi) victims.
The truth was that Japan was a breath away from surrendering and they would have (theoretically) surrendered within 2-3 weeks risking a few 1000 us lives max.
Instead the US chose to release 2 a bombs that killed over 200 000 people to force them into a quick surrender.
If you do the math the odds don't seem to add up do they.
That's because the bombs were released with an alterior motive.
There was a new enemy lurking (the soviet union) and the US just happened to have developed the perfect deterrent to keep them at bay. The A bomb. 200 000 people were killed as a warning sign to the Russians (or one russian in specific Joseph Stalin)
No matter how you look at it it was an inhumane decision that should not have been taken, but was taken and for all the wrong reasons.

Answer 3

It was a good choice when you consider the alternatives:

before the atomic bombs were used -

1. Japan was under constant FIRE BOMBING (OPERATION MATTERHORN), more people died in the Tokyo fire bombings than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were called the 'Great Fire Raids' which incinerated Toyko, Yokohama, Kawasaki, and Kobe which produced more death and destruction than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2. OPERATION DOWNFALL was the planned allied invasion of Japan in which millions of Americans and allies would have died to defeat Japan in a land war.

3. Josef Stalin declared war against Japan in 1945 and promised to invade Japan with a million Soviet communist Mongolian troops in which another several millions would have been killed.

YET by simply dropping two new and different weapons on just two cities a very nasty and long war was brought to a final end and millions of American and allied lives were saved. So yes dropping the atomic bombs was a very good choice.

Answer 4

Atomic bomb was able to make the war shorter. It is doubtless that at least some more month would have taken before invading Japan, even if Japan was at a point in which few could be done to resist united forces of USSR and USA together.
Also these would have been months of terrible bombing. Myself I consider far worse the bombing campaigns over Germany and Tokyo of 1944-1945 than the atomic bomb, as number of dead and destruction's. Missive bombing results were even worse than results of the first atomic bombs. The terrible thing of modern war is that you kill civilians for avoiding military war.
Cons is that was however a terrible massacre. And put the world into the atomic era. But Science was ready for atomic bomb, and was only a question of time.

Answer 5

Yes and no. Yeah it was a good thing because the birth of the atomic bomb brought light to the birth of new technology, just like WWII and the Cold War. The atom bomb was also an advantage of the United States to use as a trump card against the war of deterrence(using threats to keep another in check) during the Cold War. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan spared the lives of many American troops also. The negativity of biochemical weapons such as the A-bomb is that nuclear proliferation poses a threat to mankind as these weapons fall in the wrong hands can cause serious consequences(just look at the war in Iraq and the threat we face with North Korea). Also with atomic bombs, damage is far greater than any weapon in this planet. If you study the anatomy of destruction of nuclear weapons, not only can one decimate cities with a push of a button, but what is more dangerous is the nuclear fallout. As the ashes of death fall form the sky, they alone can cause serious cell mutation which can cause serious fetal problems in pregnant women and can cause cancer such as leukemia. Also, with the nuclear weapons we have today, the capacity of total damage inflicted by one atomic bomb is estimated to destroy anything within a 50 mile radius. One delivered by aircraft can destroy the entire Los Angeles county, completely obliterating any signs of life within an estimated 20 mile radius. Another thing to remember is that once the bomb hits, the nuclear explosion contaminates the land, making it inhabitable for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Just take a look at Chernobly when that nuclear reactor when out. The blast site is so contaminated, that standing there for more than 3 minutes with protective gear on is risking your your life to severe nuclear exposure and death. There are your pros and cons, hit me up for more info and I hope this was of help.

Answer 6

It depends who you ask? Ask the Japanese and see what the answer is. The ability to kill people and the decision to do so is two different questions.
What if the Americans dropped the bomb on a small island just to show the Japanese what might happen unless they quit. Even in law today if you are going to shoot someone as a police officer you are required in some countries to fire a warning shot.
Many innocent people who were not involved in decision making for war were killed.
I don't think American leadership ever explores other options then the ones that make the biggest noise and destroys the most.
In the war going on now the Americans destroyed a ship of Sadam which was none military and docked in the harbour. It was a pleasure yaut and was worth millions of dollars. In reality it was the property of the state and would have had value to the people of Iraq. It was destroyed for fun.
I think in reality the people of Iraq will agree their life was better under Sadam evil Hussan. Less people dead and they had a stable government and economy.
I am Canadian. Peace maker.

Answer 7

There were no military reasons to bomb Japanese civilians.
USSR already entered the Far East battlefront, and effectively crushed Kwangtung Army and captured Kurile Islands in August 9 - 25.
As a result, Japan lost all resources and surrendered, facing a major attack from 2 sides: USSR could land on the Northern islands, USA on the Southern islands.

Answer 8

Nuclear weapons are,never a good choice,but in japan's case, their was no other choice.It ended a long world-war.
The ''cons''...it started an arms race that,were still dealing with today !!! Meaning...after the war was over,every country in the world wanted the bomb like it.

Answer 9

great choice. hopefully Kim Jung un will see North Korea nuked back to the Stone Age :O)

Answer 10

no, that was genocide.

there is no pro to talk about.

US wiped out hiroshima and then took the role of world police in order to make sure no one else does the same. that was also the very reason why US fought Iraq. US thinks only the americans have the right to build a weapon with mass desctruction capacity. how conceited!

US is afraid of its own ghost! and it will always be paranoid that someone somewhere will give it a dose of its own medicine.