Do you think that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were justified, or a good solution?
If the option had been available, would you support the usage of nuclear weapons to end the conflict in Europe as well?
Personally, I think that atomic weapons are a ugly way to get things done. I think that in the context of the Pacific war in WWII, their usage was the best solution. Using conventional 'island-hopping' tactics would have most likely resulted in more deaths on both sides. This was largely due to the Japanese 'do or die' code of ethics- i.e. swearing to never surrender, down to the death of every Japanese citizen.
I think that atomic weapons could have also been used in the European front, had they been available. However, it would have been more difficult to justify it early on in the 'trench warfare' phase, when it would have saved the most lives. Ideally, it could have been used early on, before the massive Russian deaths. I don't think that the public would have accepted this solution before it could have had a signifigant advantage. Also, it probably would preempt the use of atomic weapons on Japan later on, because the US population would bein shock, and the Japanese would know what they had coming their way ahead of time. I don't think that using atomic weapons on the European front would have caused Japanese surrender, however.
Lastly, how do you think that the world would be different if atomic weapons hadn't been used on the Pacific front, or if they had been used on the European front , and/or both?
No, this isn't a homework assignment. I'm just curious.
If the option had been available, would you support the usage of nuclear weapons to end the conflict in Europe as well?
Personally, I think that atomic weapons are a ugly way to get things done. I think that in the context of the Pacific war in WWII, their usage was the best solution. Using conventional 'island-hopping' tactics would have most likely resulted in more deaths on both sides. This was largely due to the Japanese 'do or die' code of ethics- i.e. swearing to never surrender, down to the death of every Japanese citizen.
I think that atomic weapons could have also been used in the European front, had they been available. However, it would have been more difficult to justify it early on in the 'trench warfare' phase, when it would have saved the most lives. Ideally, it could have been used early on, before the massive Russian deaths. I don't think that the public would have accepted this solution before it could have had a signifigant advantage. Also, it probably would preempt the use of atomic weapons on Japan later on, because the US population would bein shock, and the Japanese would know what they had coming their way ahead of time. I don't think that using atomic weapons on the European front would have caused Japanese surrender, however.
Lastly, how do you think that the world would be different if atomic weapons hadn't been used on the Pacific front, or if they had been used on the European front , and/or both?
No, this isn't a homework assignment. I'm just curious.
Facebook
Twitter