What were some pros and cons for dropping the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
457314
Here is a good article by Gar Alperovitz on the topic of the bombing of Hiroshima:\nhttp://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm\n\nGar Alperovitz is THE historian when it comes to Hiroshima. His two best books on the subject are:\nThe Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and\nAtomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam : The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation With Soviet Power
7743
It depends on the mass.  Take a look at the graph in the source link. Elements with an atomic mass lower than that of Iron (or there abouts) generally must have energy added to the system to split it.  Conversely, those same atoms lighter than iron will release enegy when you fuse them together.  This is the property of nuclear fission.  It is how the sun works to create heat and light by fusing hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, and it is also the principle behind the H-bomb (the hydrogen bomb, or the fusion bomb, which is much more powerful than the fission bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima).\n\nIf the atom is heavier than iron, it will release energy when you split it.  Heavy elements like uranium and plutonium are unstable, and will naturally decay, releasing particles and energy.  If these high-energy particles hit other unstable elements--like more uranium--you can get a chain reaction, which makes decay happen more quickly.  Under controlled levels of uranium density, you can make this heat useful to boil water and run turbines and generate energy.  But if the density of the unstable element is really high, the chain reaction can take off uncontrolably, causing a nuclear explosion.  this is the principle behind fission bombs, like those dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.\n\nHydrogen bombs require tritium, which is a rare isotope of hydrogen that has two neutrons.  the technology behind nuclear fusion is more complicated than that behind fission.  Power plants currently use fission, but fission has the problem of producing radioactive waste.  Hydrogen fusion has the problem of being hard to control, although people are working on developing a fusion reactor to generate energy, which would be advantageous.
134888
Hmm, think hard_then speak has an interesting one, although the answer is reasonably well known.\n\nFollowing the WWII I'd interview Werner Heisenberg in 1944 to see if he was really NOT trying to build an A-bomb for Nazi Germany, or if that is just what he said after the war. (And after he learned he was going about it in the wrong way.)
312055
The second wworld war would have ended without the use of atomic bomb. but the war offered an opportunity for the U.S to test the bomb which it has produced. The use of that bomb made the Japanese to surrender unilaterally
720060
No.  Although the Atomic bomb caused massive casualties it did not wipe out the entire population.  There were still people, cats, dogs and other animals.
368740
Yes.  While the tremendous loss of life from the bomb and its after-effects is indeed tragic, several things need to be taken into consideration.  Firstly, the U.S. had no idea they would be condemning the next generation of children.  We've all seen the footage of the testing of the atomic in the desert.  Do you think they would have been standing so close if they knew they would probably get Leukemia?  The next thing to consider is that over 100,000 Americans died trying to take Guadalcanal, how many would have died trying to take Mainland Japan?  At least twice that number, maybe more?  And what of the Japanese?  Would they, the nation that brought the Kamikaze fighter, have surrendered?  Eventually yes, but not until they had lost at least twice as many the 60,000 plus people the bombs killed.  It is within reason to say that at least 500,000 to 1,000,000 Americans and Japanese would have had to die to end WWII with conventional warfare.  Knowing that, the trade of 60,000 lives for at least 500,000 seems reasonable.\n\nTo the person who thinks that dropping the bomb was more of a terrorist act than 9/11, you have a lot of growing up to do.
577915
A nuke is better than sterlization. Just drop a bomb and many including Osama Bin Laden will be happy and pray for you to get 72 virgins in heaven.
563994
The most positive development to come out of the bombings of Hirsoshima and Nagasaki was that the world was taught in no uncertain terms the horror of nuclear war.  It has been suggested that because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the cold war between the US and the Soviet Union never escalated to a full blown shooting war.  The horrors of a nuclear conflict were just to terrible to permit the use of nuclear bombs in war.
58312
At that time, Nuclear usage for war is still not forbidden to use. In fact, Japan was the first real-battle-field test for atomic bomb (nuke). Even the scientist that make the nuke didn't know how devastating the nuke is. I think they regret it quite a bit to use nuke at that time (but there was no other choice to end WW2 ASAP).\nUSA drop the nuke with good intention (ending the WW2 and prevent more casualities) and Iran... I don't know.\nAnd Iran has the nuke now. So it's a whole different story.
215171
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
537536
Duck and cover according to the 1950s civil defense videos.\n\nWe maneuver around the irradiated areas.  not everywhere is blown up.\n\nNot everything is blown up in even the largest nuclear war.  Many of the bombs would blow up in the same spot to ensure they were not shot down.  Life would suck but you would be alive.
106530
Open it up and smash it with a hammer. If you destroy anything vital, it will stop working.\n\nThe difficult part with atomic bombs is to make them explode. Everything MUST work perfectly with perfect timing. If anything is off, it's a dud. The chances of them exploding accidentally is almost zero.\n\nAccidental launch is a different matter.
819896
After allied forces had pushed the Japanese back to their mainland, they still refused to quit fighting.\n\nRefusing to surrender gave Harry Truman (assumed the war time presidency at Roosevelt's death) two choices. Either invade Japan on the ground at the cost of thousands upon thousands of Americans and Japanese lives or drop a bomb and kill thousands of Japanese. \n\nI have a tendency to think Truman already made the decision to drop the bomb but, don't think he thought he would need two!\n\nThe reality: A horrible destiny for a proud people that were lead by a vicious war machine and a  misguided emperor. Thousands of Japanese and their off spring affected for years after.\n\nWas it necessary?
1143694
I used to live in Japan and I have been to Hiroshima. As horrible as it was I really think the bombs saved lives on both sides. I have met older Japanese who have told me about being trained to repel the invasion with bamboo spears as children. Even after Nagasaki an anti-surrender faction attempted a coup. A blockade might have been an alternative strategy but then a lot of Japanese would have starved to death. Don't forget that there were POWs and civilian internees that were dieing from disease and starvation at the time in Japanese camps. Truman's first responsibilty was to bring the war to it's earliest possible conclusion.
109025
Kokura\nhttp://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/CG/CG_09C.htm\n\n"8/3/45 - General Groves sent 'Special Bombing Mission #13' designating Hiroshima as the target.  The secondary target is Kokura."\n\nhttp://www.vce.com/hironaga.html\n\n"Three days after Hiroshima, the B-29 bomber, 'Bockscar' piloted by Sweeney, reached the sky over Kokura on the morning of August 9 but abandoned the primary target because of smoke cover and changed course for Nagasaki."\n\nKokura is in southwest Japan, as shown on this map.\nhttp://www.kyutech.ac.jp/english/tobata/access.html
626945
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with ATOMIC weapons, the first (and so far only) time such atomic/nuclear weapons have ever been used in warfare.\n\nOh...  Japanese aggressions.\n\nWell-- instead, let's focus on the AMERICAN ones, huh?
307203
Christians did not drop atom bombs on the Japanese. Americans dropped atom bombs on the Japanese. It is an important distinction, and should be clear.\n   As the "poor" Japanese attacked our country without provocation at Pearl Harbor, I feel rather less sympathy than I might, although no nation should be subject to the terrors of nuclear war.