You are part of a nation that is fighting to survive against another nation that has invaded you, decimated your population and will soon subject you to a future of slavery.
If you keep up the fight the deaths might go into the millions. You have an opportunity to use an atom bomb. Is it right to use it? Does the end ever justify the means?
2007-12-20 09:34:04 · 21 answers · asked by Chico 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'm not even going to answer this, because if u ask a thousand people you will get a thousand opinions, and in the end only yours really matters (and i guess the guy with his finger on the button)
but i will tell u i just finished a good book on this subject, its called "brighter than a thousand suns" its the history of the atomic scientist that worked on the Manhattan project, what they felt about the bomb during the war, and after the drooping of the bombs, it covers both sides from the scientist that renounced the us to the ones that stayed with the government working on nuclear weapons. i found it pretty fair politically. check it out.
2007-12-20 13:29:42 · answer #1 · answered by danny 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When the bomb was dropped on Japan there was no media coverage as there is today and the thinking would have been that something catastrophic and would be seen around the world so the Japanese would surrender. Today's media allows more subtle ways to change a governments stand and there fore the atom bomb would not be justifiable.
2007-12-20 09:48:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What you just described is the upcoming American Revolution. The word, "Slavery" is still being used to define anything from a toothache to divorce decrees; so you can forget about that word . . . However, as citizens of THE United States of America, we need to all prepare ourselves for a real kick-asz war that is probably going to last for around 5 or 6 years and kill as many as 4 to 5 million people.
2007-12-20 09:40:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Using An atome bomb would just kill more millions adn you wont have a habitable place to live in and think about all of the AFTERWARDS. Ppl who wont be bale to give birth. Birth deformation, cnacer, ever heard fo sadok ad teh 1000 paper cranes. effects last many years after.
2007-12-20 09:38:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
its just another tool in an arsenal. A land attack on Japan would have killed millions more than the two a bombs we dropped. does it matter if its nuke or cenventional. you know a few of those MOAB bombs which are not atomic, could probably do as much damage as hiroshima
2007-12-20 09:38:33 · answer #5 · answered by Johnny U 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It replaced into ninety 9% justified. Upwards of three million civilian and militia casualties on the two aspects if the mainland of Japan replaced into invaded. And that replaced into the sole incorrect thank you to end the conflict.
2016-10-02 04:34:25 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. In war people die, that;s just the way it is. So, you can either continue a ground campaign that will consume over a million lives over x amount of years, or you can drop a nuke, kill hundreds of thousands of people instantly, and tens of thousands over the next generation.
The choices are never easy, but I feel the nuke as the lesser of two evils. At least, that ends the war.
2007-12-20 09:39:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a gamble, with people's lives, sounds crazy, but I'lllet the war go on. Couldn't kill so many people like that. I'd prefer deaths I couldn't avoid.
2007-12-20 09:39:15 · answer #8 · answered by nabnel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would escalate. You would end up starting World War 3. Man may cease to exist.
2007-12-20 09:38:00 · answer #9 · answered by Gavin T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES. I would use the Atom Bomb.
however I would warn my enemy first and give them an ultimatum. Withdraw from my country, or get the $h!t blown out of them. If they refuse to withdraw they have no one to blame but themselves.
2007-12-20 09:38:29 · answer #10 · answered by Mike Duh Russian 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋