Radcliffe Takashi Onishi
Mar 26 · Last update 2 mo. 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 the threat of nuclear weapons have deepened diplomatic tensions and continues to cause civilian casualties
1 agrees
1 disagrees
Even if the war, it should prevent the use of nuclear weapons.
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
Unacceptable the atomic bomb
3 agrees
1 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
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.

Therefore, nuclear weapons have not been a useful deterrent in the fight against modern warfare techniques such as terrorist tactics that often target civilians. If these weapons don’t function as a deterrent and the vast majority of people condemn the use of them, then they have foregone their usefulness and should be banned. Similar weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons, are illegal internationally, and nuclear weapons should enjoy the same fate.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Jul 24
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
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.
Even if the war, it should prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

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

Is it debatable whether the bombings were necessary in order to end the war? Arguably it was the Soviet Union’s abandoning of a previous mutual non-aggression pact that scared the Japanese forces into surrender.

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

During the war, forces should not have been allowed to use nuclear weapons to victimize innocent civilians. Efforts should have been made to give civilians time to evacuate to minimise the level of civilian casualties at least. There was an alternate plan, formulated by the US military, to drop the nuclear bomb on Mount Fuji. But as there were only two bombs, and one may not work as they had never been tested, the US decided to test them on civilians.

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

Reference: washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-atomic-bomb/2015/07/31/32dbc15c-3620-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html?utm_term=.6d319cd3391d

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Jul 24
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
During the war, forces should not have been allowed to use nuclear weapons to victimize innocent civilians. Efforts should have been made to give civilians time to evacuate to minimise the level of civilian casualties at least. There was an alternate plan, formulated by the US military, to drop the nuclear bomb on Mount Fuji. But as there were only two bombs, and one may not work as they had never been tested, the US decided to test them on civilians.
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”.

Following the invention of the nuclear bomb it is impossible to go backwards, this massively destructive force has been released. If all states gave up their nuclear weapons what would stop a rouge group, with enough financial assets, from acquiring nuclear weapons. And if such a group did acquire them, who would or could appose them in any way?

Reference: columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/03/kennethWaltz.html

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Jul 24
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Following the invention of the nuclear bomb it is impossible to go backwards, this massively destructive force has been released. If all states gave up their nuclear weapons what would stop a rouge group, with enough financial assets, from acquiring nuclear weapons. And if such a group did acquire them, who would or could appose them in any way?
Unacceptable the atomic bomb

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

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.

Science should take responsibility and eliminate existing atomic bombs. Various scientists have theorised methods to utilise atomic weapons for the benefit of society. One such scientist is Taylor Wilson who has designed small fission reactors that are less dangerous and less powerful than current fission generators, that could run on depleted uranium from out of date nuclear bombs.

Reference: genius.com/Taylor-wilson-my-radical-plan-for-small-nuclear-fission-reactors-annotated

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Masaki Shibutani
Jul 20
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Science should take responsibility and eliminate existing atomic bombs. Various scientists have theorised methods to utilise atomic weapons for the benefit of society. One such scientist is Taylor Wilson who has designed small fission reactors that are less dangerous and less powerful than current fission generators, that could run on depleted uranium from out of date nuclear bombs.
Translate