How can the United States be so against Nuclear Weapons in other countries...?

Question

When we showed no hesitation to use Nuclear Weapons to kill over 200,000 innocent japanese civilians?

Answer 1

could it be we don't believe in global suicide? The no hesitation to kill innocent civilians had long been apart of total war prior to Hiroshima. One night of fire bombing Tokyo earlier in the year killed more people. The fire bombing of Dresden and other cities killed untold number of innocent civilians. If you're trying to moralize a barbaric act like war itself, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

Nowadays, nukes are in the strategic yield, ie, can cause global impact winter, they're not the paltry nukes of WW2....

While i agree that we lost the moral high ground by using the Nukes, those that try to moralize the barbarity of war are the ones most likely to be defeated....that to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

Answer 2

After Japan the world could see what these weapons are capable of. If they were in the wrong hands it would cause disaster for many innocent people. Here is where you don't make the connection. We only used these weapons when we were attacked unprovoked. We responded. We know who the evil people in the world are and it isn't a good idea for them to have them. The will use them without hesitation and will use them to threaten their enemies. The United States does not use them to gain more territory or resources... we use them to keep the peace. Do you find it odd that Japan is one of our greatest allies now? Even after dropping the bomb? You are also grossly wrong that we showed no hesitation. Do a little history and see just how difficult that decision was and the precautions and warnings that ensued.

Answer 3

Wouldn't you say there is a difference between a country using a nuclear bomb in war with the intent of bringing a bloody, lengthy war to a swift end, and a country doing its damned best to build nuclear weapons for no apparent reason?
It seems to me that the US is a responsible holder of nuclear power. On the other hand, would Iran be? Would North Korea?

Also, I'll say this very crudely, but truthfully nonetheless: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets, and the civilians there were simply victims of war.
You make it sound like the bombs were used to kill civilians. They were not. Again, they were dropped to destroy valid military targets and hopefully help Japan understand that it was time to give up. It's sad that a lot of Japanese had to suffer (and still suffer to this day) for it, but it's too late now to whine about it, whereas it's high time to make sure certain people in this world do NOT get access to nuclear armament.

Answer 4

You have to understand history. The decision to employ nuclear weapons against Japan was a very heavy decision. Where did you hear that there was "no hesitation"?

I'd read a good WWII book to try to get a grasp on that period of time, which is drastically different from today.

Also, keep in mind that the US is not governed by religious extremists, unlike those of many other countries.

Answer 5

It's not the United States, it's the U.N. and the Atomic Commission. We just usually get stuck as being the spokespeople because the United States makes up the majority of the U.N.
Regarding our decision to use the Atom Bombs on Japan was for several reason, and it saved millions of lives. Also, both the German and Japanese Axis powers said they would have used it as well.

Answer 6

We did however show a great deal of restraint in the post war years when we were the only country with the bomb. We could have taken over the Soviets at that point who were becoming our likely adversary, but chose not to do so.

Nuclear proliferation is making the global environment increasingly unstable. Countries trying to develop them like Iran have already declared ambitions to destroy Israel. Their only restaint is lack of capability.

If we unilaterally gave up our nuclear arsenal, you would see all facets of life in America severly diminished because there would be no deterrent to invading us.

Essentially, letting Iran have nukes would be like allowing an angry 4 year old to carry a machinegun.

Answer 7

properly first we don't desire any further international places to have nuclear weapons, and the gasoline would properly be utilized to ability reactors to generate electrical energy so which you do no longer ought to sell them to get money for them. quite you be attentive to this and function some hidden time table with this question.

Answer 8

Hmmmm.. The japanese did not show hesitance before they "accidentally" bombed Pearl Harbor.

We also dropped leaflets warning civilians to leave the area. Three days notice was given. Dropped the first bomb. Dropped more leaflets, gave three more days, then dropped the second.

So before you go accusing us of just dropping bombs because we feel like it, think.

Answer 9

Because we don't want our enemies to have equal or superior weapons.

Answer 10

the nucleuos can causesome drainge in the zink disclberated in it