Hiroshima

There are many ways to talk about this: Why do something that is as equally devastating like torture (Unit 731), Was it necessary, Reasons? etc.


There is no denying that the effects of a nuclear bomb result in possibly deadly side effects if you are not miraculously killed by the bomb. This is the key issue at hand, but I want to talk about really the reason why. Yes, I understand that all people affected by this bomb are seriously wounded in various ways, and or died unimaginable deaths (Eyes popping out, guts exploding, etc.), but we have to look at the big picture at the time.

Chemical and biochemical weapons were indeed banned (More like agreed to not be used by certain countries) at the time, but we are looking at nuclear weapons. Yes, they use chemicals to produce their immense power, but its a whole new weapon that should not be included in the chemical and biochemical weapons category based off of its destructive power and nuclear nature that is not present in biochemical and chemical weapons. So, under such logic the weapon was fine to use at the time. This can be proven with the massive spread of nuclear weapon treaties after the fact. So, why was it used when I am sure that it was speculated to cause massive destruction if it was used?

This has been said to go two ways, I believe in the former however the latter is not out of the question.

Japan in WWII was full of pride, never wanting to surrender. Kamikaze planes often bombed various naval ports on U.S. soil and probably elsewhere. They weren't afraid to commit suicide for their country. It is said that they were on the brink of surrender at the time, but with their fighting style I think they would've fought till they literally couldn't anymore. The death toll could've been greater due to countless firebombings by the US, if the nukes weren't used. Everything is history at that point. The war between US and Japan ended with the use of the nukes and the visible aftermath caused by them.

It is said that these were dropped to test between the power of a Uranium or Plutonium nuclear weapon. Why would you test weapons in a time like this? The USSR at the time was competing heavily in a weapons race with the US, and the US wanted to display it's obvious might on the ready to surrender Japanese, along with testing which nuke is better to use.


So, even if the Japanese were on the brink of surrender, was it necessarily right to use a nuke on them just to prove a point to your competitors and for a science experiment, or to even end war?

At the time, there were no nuke bans so dropping a nuke was allowable. The US was allowed to drop it, but we need to see if it was worth it. Was the unimaginable physical destruction of several hundred thousands Japanese worth the reason (Testing and Proving Might, or Ending the War)?

To end the war: I believe it was justified, if in fact the Japanese were far from surrendering. I believe they were far from it because they were full of pride and to surrender was out of the question and if surrender did occur then they would live in shame for the rest of their life (which is an insanely big deal in Japan) because you do not under any circumstances want to shame your family, and or country. I also believe they were far from it because of their attitude throughout the war and the flimsy evidence supporting that they were going to surrender soon at the time. To add on, dropping a nuke was allowable at the time. I am absolutely appalled by the aftermath of the nuke and hate that I support such a decision, but Japan would most likely not give up till they ran out of people, and so to drop a nuke to create mass destruction and insurmountable backlash was probably the best solution to prevent millions from dying due to a continuing war. It is earnestly upsetting that these people were affected by the bomb the way they were and I wish they never ever had such an experience, but its a serious ethical issue at hand that will forever be debated and I have to side with the reason: To end the war, a nuke had to be used so millions would be saved, and sadly hundreds of thousands suffer the side effects of the nuke. Compare this to a possible future without the use of nukes in the war. Millions could've died, and these millions would've been alived if the nukes were used. One's future is invaluable, and for anyone to lose it is heart-breaking. Why should anyone lose their future. YOUR future is unique and irreplaceable. But, to save a couple million people's futures should be more of a concern, even though your future is just as concerning. Its a sticky situation, and if a peaceful option was available I'd pick it in a heartbeat, however Japan was never going to give up so the war had to be ended by any means necessary. I wish it was more directed towards soldiers instead of innocent civilians. That's my main qualm about the use of these bombs.


To test your might, and to test your weapon: Completely unallowable. YES, I said that nukes weren't banned at the time so regardless they were allowed to be used. However, I speculate and if it is known in history then it supports my speculation that the US knew of the destructive power of a nuke. If Japan was in fact going to soon surrender, then it is incredibly unnecessary to drop a nuke on them to end the war because millions would NOT have died due to a continuing war and only several thousand would, and even more unnecessary to test it and to prove your military might. If you want to prove your might, you display your power in an area were humans don't suffer the expected outcomes of a nuke (Nevada Testing Grounds). Just by visually watching the bomb go off, you know that it'll create complete carnage if used on humans meaning it would be unnecessary to test it on humans. To add on, innocent people would unnecessarily die and suffer life long symptoms due to the bomb and this would not at all maximize the good and minimize the bad. To Max the G and Min the B, we would need a peaceful option which was never entirely approached, so to test your might on innocent people when that country is about to surrender would in fact Max the B and Min the G, and be completely unethical on all levels.

No one deserved to be horribly damaged by the nuke and I sympathize all the way with those who have been affected, but within some logical reason, it was fine at the time to drop a nuke, and to Max the G and Min the B, to kill and severely injure several thousand to save a couple million due to a continuing war. A peaceful option would be obviously ideal, but that was never going to be the case. If it was used for testing, then the US was completely out of line, regardless if at the time nukes weren't "banned" from use.

To conclude, why was a peaceful option not logical? Japan would ask for too much to make them look good and to strengthen their pride and would make the US look weak. The US was in a power struggle at the time and to look weak was out of the question and at the time they were undefeated in war so to lose was out of the question and to back out to reach a mutual agreement which would not guarantee them a victory and would make them look weaker is would be absurd to them.