Home More advice Politics & Law
Here's some questions for my History Fair project :)
1.) Do you support the usage of nuclear weapons in any type of war? 2.) Does your opinion remain the same if your country/city were to be bombed by the enemy country? 3.) What are your opinions on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings in World War II?
Please no disrespectful answers. :) Thanks ~
1.) Only if the enemy has used nuclear arms first, as they have obviously proven they do not have the capacity to NOT use them, and will continue to do so until they are stopped. Nuclear weapons have been refined so much that there are small, tactical versions capable of damaging a minimal amount of the environment while effectively destroying their targets completely.
2.) Especially so. This is one of the few situations where I feel nuclear retaliation is warranted. And if such a thing were to happen, a large number of Americans opinions WOULD change, especially those directly or indirectly effected by the attack(s). This has been proven time and time again in the past.
3.) The President and Military Commanders of the time were desperate. A conventional attack on the Japanese mainland would have been suicidal for American forces. The life expectancy for the average soldier and pilot during the initial attacks was literally ranging from seconds to minutes. The Atom Bomb was a quick alternative to ending the war with minimal casualties on both sides, as such an invasion would have practically wiped the Japanese people and their culture from the face of the universe, due to their, ironically, culture. If the mass suicides( sometimes thousands) of their soldiers during times of defeat were evidence to this. However, unfortunate, long-lasting damages were caused, due to the fact that nuclear weapons and their effects were relatively untested at the time. However, studies following the bombings showed the world how truly horrid nuclear arms were on a strategic level, and have probably helped to deter further use since.
1) Generally, no. It makes more sense to surrender than to enter a nuclear exchange. Do I really care that much who I send my tax checks too?
2) If 'the enemy' is intent on annihilation and will not accept surrender, then WMDs, to include nuclear, are justifiable and prudent. Better to live another day and face the consequences.
3) They were acts of terrorism, but then, so was all of WWII. It's only since about 1975 that we realized that war with a state is not the same as war with the population residing there.
1.) No, although I don't support war at all - for any reason 2.) Yes...I would die before taking the life of another...bombing is the same ideal, just on a bigger level. 3.) I think it was done without knowledge of the possible outcomes and the problems it caused years later. Governments need to be more sure of what it is they are doing, but alternately, I think the bombing of any country is simply taking things too far.
1) No 2) Yes 3) I think it was really horrible and had long-lasting effects that were not taken into consideration
Im from NZ and we are pretty strongly anti-nuclear anything which I like!
1) Yes 2) Yes 3) The japanese bombed my country so they got what they deserved (not trying to be mean at all its War and thats what happens when someone bombs the US of A)
Thanks guys! Can I get your names, age, and residence? XD Just for extra info <3
lol
Name: Colleen Ludgate Age: 35 Residence: Ontario, Canada
