Radcliffe Takashi Onishi
Mar 26 · Last update 6 days ago.
What do you think of atomic bombings?
Atomic bombings were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during WW2 (1945). And some countries still use the threat of atomic bombings as a deterrent now (2018). What do you think of atomic bombings? Tell me multi-faceted viewpoints about it.
Stats of Viewpoints
Even if the war, it should prevent the use of nuclear weapons.
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Unacceptable the atomic bomb
2 agrees
0 disagrees
The atomic bomb has arguably been a peace tool, and kept all out world warfare in a state of stalemate
1 agrees
1 disagrees
Even the threat of nuclear weapons have deepened diplomatic tensions and continues to cause civilian casualties
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
Even if the war, it should prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

Most of the time, the casualties of war are innocent civilians.

Whether the bombing was necessary in order to end the war?

Damage of nuclear weapons extends to the general public, but the United States has used of twice within a relatively short period of time in WW2. (America dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

During the war, it should not have to use nuclear weapons to victimize innocent civilians.

Atomic bombing causes large amounts of damage to ordinary citizens. Thus, it was the wrong decision to use twice a nuclear weapon.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Radcliffe Takashi Onishi
Jun 18
Approved
OK. I merged it.
DH edited this paragraph
Most of the time, the casualties of war are innocent civilians.
Unacceptable the atomic bomb

Science needs to be used peacefully. Using science for war is unacceptable.

Especially nuclear power is very powerful, and if it uses peacefully it can help a lot of people. However, in reality, many civilians were killed by atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Science should take responsibility and eliminate existing atomic bombs.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
D H
Jun 10
DH edited this paragraph
Nuclear power is especially powerful, and if it is used peacefully it could help a lot of people. However, in reality, many civilians were killed by atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atomic bomb has arguably been a peace tool, and kept all out world warfare in a state of stalemate

Since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 there have been no further atomic bombings of civilians. From the Cold War onwards we can see that nuclear powers are reluctant to use these weapons against each other, out of fear of all out nuclear warfare. It has been argued then, by political scientists such as Kenneth Waltz, that the proliferation of nuclear weapons can be a tool of peace and that nuclear weapons can be used to achieve a state of “nuclear peace”.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
D H
May 25
DH edited this paragraph
Reference: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/03/kennethWaltz.html
Even the threat of nuclear weapons have deepened diplomatic tensions and continues to cause civilian casualties

Nuclear weapons have disputably lead nuclear powers to engage in alternative forms of warfare. Proxy wars backed by opposing nuclear powers fought in non-nuclear states have perpetuated tensions between said powers. Supporting proxy and civil wars in non nuclear states has become commonplace in order to boost economic or political gains where classic warfare is no longer an option due to the nuclear threat.

This state of affairs has debatably deepened the role of terrorism in the world. Continuous instability of non-nuclear states funded by nuclear powers have been part of the reason terrorist groups such as ISIL target “the West”. The atomic bomb has been a catalyst for change in warfare; but the fear of civilians being the target of atomic bombings has indirectly lead to civilians being targets of smaller, more frequent terrorist attacks.

Agree
Disagree
Translate