The United States was the first country to build an atomic bomb. It is the only one to have used them in war?
457093
Yes, Seneca said that.  Interesting that you would quote him. Do you know what his point was in saying "Be careful that your enemies dont get your weapons"?  Sounds a lot like that quote is very much in support of limiting nuclear proliferation Would it be best if nobody had nukes?  In the 50 years before nuclear weapons were invented, over 100 million people were killed in wars.  And in the 60+ years since, is that true?  If the US destroyed all of it's nuclear weapons, do you seriously believe this would end the problem?  That countries like North Korea and Iran would generously quite trying to build them?  The US, along with the EU, is trying to stop other countries from building nuclear weapons.  Are you trying to say that because the US, France, and the UK, among others, have nuclear weapons, that they should not try to stop proliferation?  Are you saying that the US and those other countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, and thus would miraculously cause everyone else to stop building them?  Think about it-the US is hated by many powerful countries.  If the US got rid of their nuclear weapons, would that tend to make those countries more eager, or less, to build a weapon that, once the US had none, could aid these other countries in actually defeating the US on a battlefield?  Think through your argument- The US having nuclear weapons may be a problem, but it is unrelated to nuclear proliferation.  And, the US is not leading the battle to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the EU is.
653074
The Ultimate War... However, one cannot assume that just because a country has a nuclear warhead they will use it... They haven't yet. America was the developer of the nuclear bomb, and we are also the only ones to have used it in a war (i.e. WWII). And we used it twice... Cuba is screaming at us, "Listen to me! We have nukes!" But they won't do shit with them. Russia, the Cold War, this Long War... All just government propaganda to get you to go along with gas prices and avian bird flu. Pride is not about nationality, it's about being a human being and being alive, for that matter... Just because your country says that you have a nuclear bomb doesn't mean they're going to use it... Just save it for a rainy day, I suppose. Just so that when everybody is dropping the bomb, that one little country (we'll call it Kerplakistan) can join in and not feel left out. If every country had a nuclear weapon, though, America would be bombed first, and we have more nukes than there are countries in the world! In conclusion, it may bring world peace, world destruction, or a wholly new world order.
481813
Why should the US be the only ones to have nukes in the first place?  Our president wants to claim everyine else is out to use them, when the fact of the matter is that our country is the only one in the world to have actually used them in a war situation.  In my eyes, I see our world as one.  And if one country on the map is allowed to have nukes to defend themselves, then so should everyone else.  We are just another country.  Just another land mass on the map.  Yes, we have more than others, but we also are more arrogant.  I can vouch for that, since I can be pretty stuck up at times.
453479
The only nuclear weapons ever used in battle were at\nHiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan on Aug 6 and Aug 9 1945.\nThey were the 2nd and 3rd nuclear devices ever exploded \nin history. The first was a test in Almogordo, New Mexico. The first and third explosions were from plutonium and the\nsecond, from uranium. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki\nweapons had code names, Little Boy and Fat Man. The names\nreflected their shape. Little Boy was narrow and long,\nsomewhat pencil shaped and had an explosive ignition.\nFat Man was altogether larger, spherical shaped and had \nan implosive ignition. Little Boy was carried by a B-29\nnamed Enola Gay after the captain's mother. Fat Man\nwas carried by a B-29 named Bock's Car after the captain's\nname. Both planes took off from Tinian Island.
284683
It was the first Japanese city that the US a-bombed.
1072384
USA used nukes in Japan cities and chemical weapons in Vietnam, also US using a lot of "depleted uranium" and "Phosphoric" bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq, JUST FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES, INCLUDING HUMAN-RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY ISSUES, etc...!!!!
4762
The USA - the USA provided 100% of Japan's self defense - Japan had to spend NOTHING on its own military for 50 years (and the US still provides most of it to this day), whereas the USA spends billions a year. This 'free money' gave Japan tons and tons of capital to first rebuild, and then to monopolize - the USA gave Japan a free meal ticket to rebuild after the war.
691733
askwrites is an idiot.  In an ideal world that would work, but in an ideal world no one would make nuclear weapons to begin with. \n\nTrue the U.S. is the only country that used nuclear weapons, but do the research and the study. There were many lives saved on both sides by doing so.  An invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Also, we did not know about the fall out from nuclear weapons was so bad. \n\nPersonally, I don't think any group should be able to build nuclear devices. That's one of the responsibilities of the U.N. I just wish that other countries would step up and do things about the injustices in the world other than the U.S.
156184
I agree with the answerer who states that the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a term the media came up with for dramatic purposes, I will use the term in my answer just for the sakes of ease and clarity.\n\nWhile some of the answers I read to this question target the United States of America, the US government does not "support" the indescretionate use of weapons of mass destruction.\n\nThe only parties that support the indescretionate use of wmd's are the like of terrorists. \n\nI must, however, concede that America did bomb Japan twice and have done our best to turn parts of countries like Afganistan and Iraq into parking lots if you take my meaning, we did not do that without absolute cause. The United States, as well as other countries with "wmd's", only supports their use when all other options have been exhausted. \n\nThe two Atomic bombs we dropped on Japan were reciprocity, and they worked. Japan was not a big problem afterwards. As far as the massively heavy artillery we have used in Iraq and Afganistan, they were simply needs of war. \n\nAt the end of the active cold war, the leaders of the United States and Russia both agree on a hope that anyone with weapons powerful enough to destroy the world, (ie, Nuclear bombs) would be smart enough to never use them.\n\nIn other words, America and Russia were in a race to have the most Nuclear bombs...not to use them, but to keep the Nuclear Equilibrium. Whereas terrorists aquire one dirty bomb simply for the purposes to use it.
899957
well first off the germans bombed pearl harbor, and no they did not use nukes. you should watch ANIMAL HOUSE it is a great documentary. you will learn a lot.
603744
And so does the UK and South Africa.\n\nThe good thing is that in the last 50 years no-=one has used them, but that will all change if a lunatic who is not afraid of retaliation gets the bomb.\n\nIran and North Korea come to mind.\n\nWhen you have nothing but an unshakeable belief in your religion or system its easy to start a war.
394066
Yes, absolutely.\n\nwhy it is permitted only to western countries & Israel to have nuclear energy or weapons, and not for any other coutry (specially if it was Muslim one)\n\nDo not tell me because we are terrorists-I expect some people to say that remember that America is the one and only country that used the nuclear Bomb.\n\nEach country has the right do its researchs, to have defensive tools agianst any potential threat.
1125274
Study your history, not the media...  One factor which helped make the decision to use the Atomic (not nuclear) bomb was the Invasion of Okinawa in April 1945.  Okinawa was the first island in the chain of islands leading to the mainland Japan.  12,000 US troops were killed and 36,000 US troops were wounded.  Using this model it was estimated that an invasion of the mainland would have cost 1 million US casualties...
301058
well, there were two parts of it.\nthe first, of course, was nuclear technology. at first, the USA was the only one that had atomic bombs. but during the 1940s, Stalin infiltrated FDR's staff and bought the technology. when Russia had atomic bombs, they threatened to use them on us.\nthe other half was what happened to Europe.  by the time the war was over, basically every country in Europe was broke and desolate. so the two countries left standing, USA and Russia. USA and England wanted to push democracy, Russia wanted to expand communism. this lead to pretty much a global fight on how to bring back Europe. when the two sides started fighting, nuclear bombs became trump card.
986692
The US has thought of itself and the world's peacekeeper or policeman since the end of World War II. Nuclear proliferation is a problem whether or not the US keeps its arms. From the end of World War II until the beginning of the Bush administration, the US actively sought to limit the spread of nuclear arms through peaceful means. Bush's willingness to use the military before diplomacy is tried is an aberration.
124578
There is no difference...some people say nuke because that was the term used in the 1960's...there is a difference between atom bombs and hydrogen bombs...atom bombs use uranium as the "fuel" (catalyst), it being a very "heavy" atom (atomical weight) while the hydrogen bomb as the name implies uses hydrogen as its catalyst which is very light.
640040
weapons like bombs are atomic weapons, guns are atomic weapons because they use attems to get there power, nuclear weapons get there power from harnesting the power of nucli