101 thoughts on “Blog #33”

1. Rennie P April 15, 2012 at 10:42 pm

   It is clear to me that building up our military with a nuclear arsenal was not worth it at the time. Monetary wise, it was a waste of money. In 1940, we were a year out of the Great Depression, so spending this much money on something we clearly wanted instead of needed was absolutely idiotic. During the Cold War, we spent 3.64 billion dollars/year; a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a nuclear weaponry program. Social and political wise, it was a mistake. I mean, this is before NATO, at a time where we thought we knew who our allies were, but at the same time once we build up a nuclear arsenal it’s pretty easy for any country to fear us and then turn on us. It may have been a good idea perceptually because countries that we wanted to fear us would be closer to fearing us, but I think the impacts of losing allies were overlooked. It wasn’t worth the lost lives, either. I think it was pretty clear that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and we didn’t even give Japan enough time to recover from explosion to explosion. I think this might show our true desires in this situation. So, after America gets the nuclear weapons Truman is really hyped up about, we become really eager to get more in the Cold War. I mean this a normal trait. Once we think we have something that is better and more powerful than anything else, anyone else has, we like to exploit that. With these nuclear weapons, it’s simple to say goodbye to cooperation and peace at some point. Empirical evidence proves that the more aggressive a hegemonic country becomes (like the United States, for example), the more other countries fear us and are less likely to be more open to peaceful negotiations.
   1. I think that in some ways, NK and Iran desire nukes because the US has them. I also think that things like nuclear weapons are desirable even if the world’s leading power doesn’t have one. Obviously, the state convinces us that terrorists with nuclear weapons are something to fear. And countries want to be feared at the right time. I guess it can be considered ironic that they want a nuclear weapon in spite of the Big Five nuclear powers convincing them not to possess the weapon. I don’t think they intend it to be ironic, however. They just desire things that will make them bigger and better.
   2. Under a capitalist hegemon like the United States, a world without nuclear weapons is functionally impossible, in my opinion. I think that a lot of the world follows the United States’ example. If America became a socialist country; sure, I think we could achieve a world without multiple nuclear arsenals. I think that’s far away and probably not going to happen. I think that’s one of the only ways.
   3. I think the possessed so many nuclear weapons for the simple fact that they were afraid of each other and didn’t have the effort to attempt to trust one another. It was a new form of a space race, in some ways. They wanted to race to see who could get more nukes instead of who could launch the most satellites or telescopes. I think they wanted to intimidate one another.
2. Carly Yashinsky April 15, 2012 at 10:43 pm

   I do think though that dropping the atomic bomb was stupid and could have been avoided. Although this move was a fast and easy way to finally put an end to World War 2 and for the United States to flex their nuclear powered muscles, though, the effects have now caused something greater than I think anyone could have imagined. According to brookings.edu the United States alone spends around $35 billion dollars a year (14% of the Defense Budget) on nuclear weapons. And a grand total of $5.5 trillion dollars has been spent on Nuclear weapons altogether. Now this is an extremely high cost to spend on nuclear weapons, but I’m afraid we can’t stop now. Now that nuclear weapons have been created people will always feel more security in having them and building up their countries supply. The world now is in possession of around 23,000 nuclear warheads. Though if any of these weapons were ever dropped, the effects could in the end cause the death of all of mankind. Politically speaking, whoever has the most nuclear weapons nowadays is the most powerful country, therefore once the Soviet Union created their own Atomic Bomb, a race for the most nuclear weapons created the cold war. During the cold war people lived in constant fear that the Soviet Union would make the move of an actual nuclear attack on the United States. Talks of bomb shelters and what to do in case of a nuclear attack were now day to day subjects that people spoke about. The effects of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can never be taken back for forever more people will be in constant fear of a nuclear attack and spend trillions of dollars in ensuring that the United states is the most prepared.
   1.) I do think that Iran and North Korea trying to have nuclear weapons is just an attempt to seem powerful enough to hang with the “big guys” of the world (the U.S, Russia, China, France, and Britain). Especially in North Koreas case, I think that building their nuclear weapon was an attempt to try and make North Korea a powerful leader in the world, and to try and instill fear in their peers considering there is a new dictator Kim Jong Eun who probably feels the need to prove himself a powerful new political leader after the abrupt passing of his father. And yes I do think that it is ironic that North Korea and Iran seek safety in the possession of a nuke yet at the same time it jeopardizes their nation’s safety because the Big Five nuclear powers focus their energies on preventing them from getting that nuke.
   2.) I do not think that we will ever live in world without nuclear bombs. Even if we all agree never to use them, I do think that we will always have them because no one can trust any other countries to uphold that sort of promise.
   3.) In the words of Arthur Miller “Fear doesn’t travel as well; just as it can warp judgment, its absence can diminish memory’s truth. What terrifies one generation is likely to bring only a puzzled smile to the next…” What he means by this is that a generation who did not live during a period of fear (in his case the cold war); will not understand what that fear will do to you. Generation Y will never be able to understand the fear the United States and the Soviet Union possessed against each other at that time. With the United States and the Soviet Union both building up their nuclear weapons, that sort of power was scaring everybody. Even if they were not going to nuclear bomb or attack anybody, the fear that it could possibly happen and that one country would be inferior to the other in the amount of weapons they possessed kept each country creating more and more out of fear and just to be on the safe side.
3. Danielle Borovsky April 15, 2012 at 10:46 pm

   I do not think that the development of the nuclear bombs were worth it. There were more negative affects then positive in the situation and the amount of money spent of it was ridiculous. Though it was a big step in ending WWII it caused so many issues that we still are having to deal with now. The amount of deaths that our bombing of japan caused is horrific, according to the pros and cons of the Seattle Post Japan was about to call it off anyways. Its sad that the only way we could stop the killing of people was by killing more people. Our goal of getting our message to the Japanese officials was received loud and clear but the lives that were lost will never get a voice. Our discovery of how to build nuclear bombs has for sure caused other country’s to go into a panic and start making their own nuclear weapons. Though their nations safety will be questionable if they discover the nuke it is understandable that they would continue trying. No country wants to feel so vulnerable to the US and with out nuclear weapons that is how they feel. During the cold war it was a fight to see how could make more technologic advances, so the Soviet Union and US just kept on trying to outdo each other. So each country wanted to have more bombs than the other. Owning nuclear weapons is just like bullying. The bully obviously picks on the weak kid who is unable to defend himself rather than a bulky tall basketball player. So in these modern times no country wants to be the defenseless kid who gets bullied. Unless America agrees to disposing of some of their nuclear weapons, countrys will continue to try and meet our standards of nuclear development.
4. Maddi Gonte April 15, 2012 at 10:46 pm

   Was it worth the cost: No, the development of the nuclear bombs was certainly not worth the cost financially or the cost of human lives. According to the Brookings Institute Article, America spent about $3.64 billion per year during the Cold War, which estimates to about $152.24 billion overall. This is a huge and unnecessary amount of money to be spending on a war with a basis of fear rather than a war with an actual cause. Also, the Denver Post states that just deploying the bomb costed 57% of America’s money. On the other hand, the use of atomic bombs is absolutely despicable due to the mortality rate and the massive amounts of inevitable damage. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serve as proof of the extensive damage that comes with an atomic bombing. When the Enola Gay dropped the atomic bomb, nicknamed
   “Little Boy”, disaster struck in Hiroshima. 140,000 innocent Japanese died at once. They simply evaporated as a result of the impact of the bomb. Throughout the following months, 80,000 more Japanese died because of the contamination, disease, and destruction left in the wake of the bomb. But the civilians weren’t the only ones to suffer. Buildings were demolished, reconstruction seemed impossible and was bound to take many years, nature was destroyed, animals were killed, and the city was unfit for life due to the residue and contamination. Now the real question is: why should these innocent civilians and animals suffer because of political unrest? In addition to the atrocities of the bomb, it was just completely unnecessary. America basically just bombed a country that was already getting ready to surrender. Japan had already organized to have peace conferences with many other nations. Also, why did we have to attack innocent lives? Why not target a military base? Or we could have held a demonstration if the U.S. really felt the need to flex their muscles. In conclusion, the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary due to the costs, morality, and the endless alternatives.

   1. I believe that North Korea and Irans’ desperate attempts to make a nuclear weapon are partly a reaction to the U.S. It can not be overlooked that the U.S., being the first country to ever attack with a nuke, sparked the inevitable future atomic warfare. No one wanted to be the first due to the criticism that was sure to come for using such an immoral weapon. However, now that the U.S. had already put it to use, other countries have a clear path. Also, the U.S.’s possession of thousands of nukes could be seen as a threat to the other nations. Nobody likes to feel weak, so they may try and show off their strengths just to put us in our place and make sure that we don’t get too self-assured. This way, they’ll be preventing the U.S. from feeling like we can attack them without retaliation and they may even inject some fear in America. No, it isn’t ironic that North Korea and Iran seek safety in the possession of a nuke yet at the same time it jeopardizes their safety because the Big Five nuclear powers focus their energies on preventing them from getting that nuke. It’s not ironic, because it’s to be expected. Obviously something as big as the production and possession of an atomic bomb is going to stimulate these types of predicaments.

   2. I find it hard to believe that we will ever live in a world free of nuclear bombs. First of all, since the production, possession, and use of the bombs have already been established, it’ll be very difficult to convince the nations to destroy them. There’s bound to be multiple nations that’ll refuse, and therefore the other nations will wonder why they should get ride of theirs when the other countries remain in possession of them. It would make them vulnerable, with no means of protection. Second of all, achieving this goal would take world peace, which has been impossible to achieve throughout all of history. There has always been at least a few predicaments occuring between countries where the possession of a nuclear bomb seems desirable.

   3. The U.S. and the Soviet Union possessed so many nuclear bombs (70,000), despite the fact that even just one hundred nuclear bombs could cause a “nuclear winter”, due to the tensions and fear caused by the Cold War and the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fear and the desire to be the strongest nation out there seemed to have simply pushed the extreme consequences from Washington’s mind. The two countries continued to attempt to speed up the rate at which bombs were being produced in order to produce more than the other country. They wanted to win the title of the country with the most atomic bombs despite the terror that their civilians lived in. Every day they lived in fear that there may be a mistake with the production of bomb, causing it to go off in America and demolish every thing in sight within a twenty mile radius. Or else that the Soviet Union had decided to bomb them at last. Also, any malfunctions or mass bombings could spark this “nuclear winter”. A nuclear winter is what scientists predict to be the reaction of one hundred of these bombs going off at once, which is completely possible with 70,000 of them at hand in just two countries. According to wikipedia, it is theorized that detonating large numbers of nuclear weapons has a profound and severe effect on the climate causing cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of months or even years, especially over flammable targets such as cities, where large amounts of smoke and soot would be ejected into the Earth’s stratosphere.
5. Josh Vance April 15, 2012 at 11:00 pm

   Even though it caused plenty of controversy, I do think that nuclear weapons were worth the cost. Nuclear weapons were expensive, but isn’t war always? I would think our largest, most powerful weapon would be worth it. Our nuclear weapons were such a huge advancement of our army that it helped end the Soviet Union and ultimately helped us in World War 2. How would we have gotten out of the war without bombing Japan? Invading them would have been a suicide mission and downright impossible. When we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, it took many lives but it ended a war that was taking lives anyways. Sure, people are dying early from bodily complications caused by the bomb, but some are also dying early war which caused a large amount of mental and physical health problems. Politically, it put us in competition with other countries to have nuclear weapons (Iran is still trying to keep up by developing nuclear weapons). The only aspect where it would not have been worth it was socially. It’s hard to keep peace in the world when every country has the power of causing major destruction by unleashing a bomb. Nuclear weapons did cause quite the stir, but I think that it is essential for us as a country to have. It kept many American lives safe in the heat of possibly the biggest war we ever took part in. Maybe to save us a little less economic stress, we did not have to go so over board with the creation of nuclear weapons in the U.S., but nuclear weapons do play an important role and I feel that it’s necessary in the protection of this country.
6. Emily Bice April 15, 2012 at 11:03 pm

   In my opinion, as horrible and despicable the dropping of atomic bombs in Japan was, along with all of the other bombings during the war, it was worth it and necessary. As we are learning from living in a world of entrepreneurship and technology, if you don’t do it/create it soon enough, someone else will and you will be left in the dust. By creating the first atomic bombs and releasing them, we not only made ourselves more powerful but also became a force not to be messed with; as the nation showed in Hiroshima, they had no qualms in killing over 200,000 innocent citizens to protect their country. I still do not commend or agree with what was done. However, I do agree that it had to be done. As for the question of if we can ever live in a world free of nuclear weapons, my answer is no. The issue on nuclear weapons is the same as the issue on guns. Anyone can go out and buy a gun today; they have access to a weapon with the ability to devastate people and ruin lives. It is because of that reason that other people may go out and buy guns. They don’t buy a gun because they want to use it; they buy it because they need to feel safe. The same goes with nuclear weapons. After the US had one, everyone needed one. The other big countries couldn’t protect their country when there was another country possessing weapons of mass destruction and they had nothing to fight back with. They had to fight fire with fire. So I don’t think we can ever go without nuclear weapons, because there will always be that fear that another country is making them in secret. Now that the world knows how to make these weapons of mass destruction, even if we get rid of all the built ones, there will always be the potential to build more. So the question was ‘was it worth it’? I have to answer yes. By making those bombs, we got a much-needed head start in the arms and weapons race that would soon start after the war. We protected ourselves in the cold war by not being the weaker, less protected country. We did what we had to do to survive.
7. Brendan Dwyer April 15, 2012 at 11:04 pm

   No, the developing of the nuclear bomb was not worth it. The nuclear bomb took a toll on everyone. An estimated 200,000 people have died from the bombings, including deaths today. It angered many Americans who had relatives that had been killed in the blast, and it caused an arms race between the United States and Russia. We spent about 6 billion dollars in 1945 to produce and drop both bombs, and to pay for damages. Also, I do believe that Iran and North Korea’s desperate attempts to create nuclear weapons is in response to the number of nukes the United States owns. Nuclear weapons can easily devastate a country, and if Iran and North Korea want to intimidate the United States, they need nukes. Even though they want nukes, it is very ironic that they are trying to create when that is exactly what the United States and the Big Five try to prevent. I also think that the word will one day be free of nukes. They’re too devastating, and I believe that we will, one day, disarm all of them. It would take a mutual agreement between all of the countries in the world to disarm all of the nukes. I think that the United States and the Soviet Union possessed as many as 70,000 nukes between the both of them strictly to show off power. I believe that both countries understood that 70,000 nukes is far too many to use. The Soviets just wanted to look more powerful than the U.S., and we retaliated by trying to produce more nukes than them.
8. Alina Steinberg 3rd hour April 15, 2012 at 11:22 pm

   In my opinion, the building and dropping of nuclear bombs was completely unnecessary. The Brookings Institute’s analysis on the price of nuclear weapons from 1940-1996 showed that dropping a bomb would be very costly and just deploying the bomb alone would be 57% of that large price. The huge expenses on the making and dropping of a bomb, largely overpower the dismantling of the bombs or support for the victims of bombings, this shows that the heads of the people creating these bombs weren’t in the right place. This shows that the well being of the American citizens was not a top priority, all of this money spent creating problems that couldn’t necessarily be fixed was not a wise idea. Yes, some money spent on these bombs was reasonable because America needed a way of protecting themselves, and at the time we needed a way to scare the Japanese leadership to surrender, but if only they had waited a bit longer because the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway. Creating these bombs was not only a financial burden to our country but it was also a social burden. This past year, I participated on the Groves Forensic Team and my piece was about a women growing up during the cold war in fear of bombs being dropped onto her house or tanks rolling up her driveway, she got so afraid she couldn’t even just live her life, everything she did was out of fear. This women’s experience was probably not uncommon, many men and women must have been horrified of what was taking place right around their own homes. The fear instilled in the minds of the American citizens because of the bomb was not worth the creation of these weapons because the effect it had troubled the lives of so many. Not to mention the effects of nuclear radiation after a bomb is dropped, that alone is responsible for the death or sickness of many people and the radiation has been responsible for completely ruining certain places in other countries to the point where they have had to be evacuated and abandoned. Though I don’t think nuclear weapons are a good thing for our nation, or any nation to posses, I know they can’t be given up, they are a good resource for protecting ourselves and without them our country would be way too much of an easy target. I think there should more of a controlled environment for these weapons, like what kinds of weapons they are allowed to make, or a much more controlled environment for dropping bombs, or only using them if it is completely necessary. I think nuclear bombs are a good thing to have on hand, a sense of security if anything were to go wrong with our nation, I just think they need to be used as sparingly as possible.
9. Sarah Costello April 15, 2012 at 11:24 pm

   I think that technology was moving forward in a way that whether the program was right or wrong it was the next step. If America wasn’t going to do then someone else would have. Technology was moving forward during this time period and everyone was focusing on bigger and better. Nuclear weapons were the next thing. The Manhattan Project began 1939 and started working on developing the atomic bomb. The Allies needed an easier way to end the war rather than an invasion of Japan which would have taken 500,000 American lives. It was able to cause enough harm for Japan to finally surrender. It ended the war swiftly with as little American deaths as possible which is what war is, taking out as many people from the other side as possible.
   Personally, I don’t believe anyone should have nuclear bombs. Nothing good will come of them and they will only cause damage and fear. I do not think that the world will ever live in a world free of nuclear bombs because there will always be war, people with different opinions. New weaponry advancements will be just increasing the affects of nuclear bombs. The World will not be able to survive another world war because it will just be people dropping nuclear bombs on each other killing off the whole human race. It’s like what happened with the Cold War, to have more weapons than the other and everyone was waiting for someone else to drop the first bomb. Smaller countries such as North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons so that they will be able to have something if a war like this begins. The Big Five nuclear powers try to prevent them from having nuclear weapons because many don’t really have stable governments and can’t be trusted to make and operate such powerful weapons. With North Korea’s failed missile launch who says that they won’t try to come back with an even more powerful weapon than before.
   To sum up, I don’t think that the program was worth the money or lives but I don’t think it could have been avoided either and that how war works, the team with the bigger, more powerful weapons wins.
10. Alec Barnes April 15, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    I think that NK and Iran trying to split the atom is simply because of their belief that once they have the power of a nuclear missile, that they will somehow be a greater and more powerful nation, or if anything a more dangerous one. In all reality the U.S’s belligerence has been completely self-brought, with Iran’s governments known affiliations with terrorist organizations, and North Korea’s profound hate for America and Democracy itself. Their belief in the safety in having a nuke is the same situation as giving someone with mental instability a bomb, they are a loose cannon, and they know that if they have a nuclear weapon they believe that they will then, through their instability, be more feared, and therefore left alone. Truthfully, to rid the world of nuclear bombs is like trying to rid the world of terrorism, no matter what happens, people will seek shelter in having “the bigger gun than the other guy” even if it means harnessing something they do not understand like nuclear weapons. Do I believe we will ever see a world that can exist without nuclear weapons? No, but that doesn’t mean that we just let the people who have them just run amuck with them either.

    Obviously the reason that the U.S. and Soviet Union had some many nuclear weapons was because America had already possessed the power of nuclear weapons and showed they were able to deploy it when necessary and I think when the Cold War started, the Soviets felt pressure to not be fighting with a nation that had nukes if they didn’t have any so they started making nukes, and once America found out that they were, we began to make more and it just went back and forth until we ended up with such a staggering number which never got used thankfully. I think the reason that America and the Soviets made so many was because truthfully six nukes doesn’t sounds nearly as scary and intimidating as 6 thousand, to put it in simple terms.
11. Erica Gardner April 15, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    Reaction: I’m not sure what I believe about nuclear bombs. About one-third of me understands the rationale behind developing and using nuclear weapons. I think it was logical to develop the bomb for several reasons. First, other countries besides the US were racing towards the atomic bomb, such as Germany. Hitler was a ruthless leader and there is little doubt that he would have used an atomic bomb if Germany had invented one first. Japan had also committed numerous atrocities, such as the murder of 140,000 civilians in Nanking, China, and so it’s hard for me to think that they would consider the atomic bomb too extreme. Overall, I think it was important that the US funded atomic research, if only to prepare for the worst. In addition, the use of atomic bombs had the potential to be more merciful than an actual invasion, because an invasion could have killed more people. It would have ended the war a lot more quickly, as well. The other reasons given in the Seattle Times are valid too. However, the other two-thirds of me asks how anyone could ever think that using the atomic bomb was okay. 200,000 people died in Hiroshima alone as a result of the atomic bomb (from the bomb itself or radiation/burns/injuries afterwards). That’s 200,000 people who barely had warning of the atrocity that was flying towards them; 100,000 were killed instantly, and another 100,000 who had to die slowly and painfully, witnessing the devastation of their city and the deaths of their friends and family. I think that not only was the bomb morally wrong, but it was financially wasteful. Building the bomb only took 7% of the approximately $200 billion spent on it, but the action of deploying the bomb alone (not including all the other expensive aspects of using it) took up 57%. If America had simply refrained from dropping the bomb, they would have saved billions of dollars. Besides the ethical reasons and monetary cost, the social and political turmoil that the atomic bombs caused were not worth it. Once the atomic bombs had been dropped, some countries were even more desperate to complete their own in order to be as formidable as the United States. One of the results was the Cold War, the expensive conflict between the US and the Soviet Union that resulted in the tens of thousands of nukes being built. Overall, I think that the DEVELOPMENT of the atomic bomb was necessary. It was inevitably going to be built, so I’m glad that we were the first to build it. It was also a huge scientific success. However, I don’t think that we should have used the bombs. According to the Seattle Times, if we had waited longer and worked harder on compromise and diplomacy, we could have saved thousands of innocent lives and millions of dollars. Not only that, but without the demonstration of the nuclear bomb’s power, other countries might not have been so eager to build their own. It could have delayed the beginning of the Cold War or prevented it altogether, I’m not sure.
    1) I think that North Korea and Iran building nuclear weapons are not a reaction to the United States. I don’t think that that they are afraid that the United States is going to risk nuclear warfare any time soon, so I think that they are just trying to show off, and show how formidable they are. But I think it would be a waste of time, because even if they did succeed, they are still outnumbered and overpowered. If they were to start a nuclear war, they would lose. In the process they are endangering themselves because they are certainly not endearing themselves to the rest of the world through their actions. 2) I don’t think we will ever live in a world free of nuclear bombs. I think it is just in human nature to try to be the most powerful, and currently to be powerful, a nation has to have a nuclear bomb or hydrogen bomb. Even if all nuclear weapons were eradicated, countries would feel insecure without them and they would probably end up being built again. 3) I think that the so many nuclear weapons were built because each country was over-preparing and over-compensating. Each country wanted to show how strong they were and how they would end up winning if a nuclear war ever occurred. Luckily a war and a nuclear winter were both avoided.
    I’m so sorry this is long, I wrote way too much.
12. Merrill Watzman April 15, 2012 at 11:34 pm

    I think that the nuclear weapons and the work put into constructing them was not worth the cost, but was obviously beneficial because it ended WWII. The negatives of the bombs and nuclear weapons outweigh the positives in my opinion, due to the monetary, social, and political costs. According to the Brookings Institute’s analysis of the cost of nuclear weapon, the overall weapon cost about $5,200,000,000 which is an incredible amount of money to spend creating and deploying the nuclear weapon. I do not think that the nuclear bomb was worth the lives it destroyed and the affect it had on the Japanese population. The United States gave a small sum of money, compared to what they spent on deploying the bomb, to the Japanese that was not substantial enough to accommodate to the people who needed medial attention from the affects of the bomb. The social and political costs of the bomb was that America was seen as very powerful, and even a threat to the rest of the world, which was disrupting world peace. Other countries like NK and Iran’s attempts to make a nuclear weapon are definitely in reaction to the United State’s possession of thousands of nukes. Other countries are worried about what kind of power Iran and NK will have if they posses a nuclear weapon, but they feel obligated to have nuclear weapons because of the large quantity the United States and other countries have. I think that it might be possible to live in a world free of nuclear bombs, but it would be very hard to accomplish such a task. Nuclear bombs are used to show power and superiority over other countries, and countries are in a desperate race to create them so they can have the same power as the ones that do have them. All countries of the world would have to agree not to use the atomic bombs, or even destroy them, if living in a nuclear bomb free world was in their interest. I think that the United States and the Soviet Union had so many weapons because they were intimidated by the power that the other country could potentially have over them. This arm’s race was just in fear of one country attacking the other.
13. Stephen "Fission" Brown April 15, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    Was it worth the cost?
    To me, the cost of developing, manufacturing and implementing nuclear weapons was worth “it”. Technology makes the difference. On the global stage the most deciding factor in success is technology. The more advanced country will always succeed. We needed to be on top. In the mind of our government and the populace there was no price too high to achieve this. The nuclear bomb was our super-weapon. If we could make a weapon capable of leveling entire cities we can keep the peace through threat of annihilation. This holds true even at the start of WWII. Germany was the most technologically advanced nation by way of military. And as such they easily swept through Europe and northern Africa during the war. They began to lose steam once another technological country stepped in. America wanted to further the gap of weapons and technology between itself and the rest of the world. The Manhattan Project wasn’t the only project we had been looking into. We were looking at anything and everything to try and get the upperhand and show everyone we weren’t to be taken lightly. At one point we even had tested tying incendiary bombs to bat’s legs and letting them set cities on fire. We as Americans know we are superior. But many other countries disagree, we need to show them. One way to do this is through technology. That way is to become much more powerful than them in military, commercial and everything else.
14. Megan Van Ermen April 15, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    The nuclear bomb had many pros and cons to it. It is tough to decide whether or not dropping nuclear bombs was worth the monetary, social, political, and cultural costs. But I think it is easy to say that a change had to be made. World War II was in a bad place, so many people were dying everyday and some countries including Japan didn’t know their place. With Japan trying to control the Pacific, the United States had to send a message. The nuclear bomb had a large and terrible impact on everyone, and something was needed but definitely not to this extreme. In my opinion, nothing will ever be worth the amount of lives lost and destruction that it caused but something had to be done. It also seems really bad that America spent so much money on nuclear weaponry right after they were getting out of the worst depression ever that the country had ever been in. Although it may have caused some sense of security for many Americans during the war, the aftermath induced so much fear in everyone else. Everyone else then became so concerned with threats and defense that they felt they needed to arm themselves with their own nukes. Because of the damage (physical and mental) that the nuclear bomb created, I think it would be nearly impossible to rid the world of all the nuclear bombs. The bomb seemed like a good idea because of the way it was used to potentially end the war, and help to secure Americans and keep them safe. But thinking back and after all of the destruction that followed, maybe a different plan could have made for a more secure future.
15. Eric Scott April 15, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    I do not think that the manufacturing and usage of nuclear weapons is necessary. The use of nuclear weapons brings nothing but angry and stiff to a country, especially when a nuclear bomb is dropped on innocent people in a country. The Japanese were close to surrendering, and the U.s targeted an innocent person which is stupid, because the Japanese soldiers were the one who bombed Pearl Harbor, not the innocent citizens of Japan. Also Japan was negotiating peace talks with certain countries at the time. Two atomic bombs seems like a little too much. I think that President Truman made a bad decision, and shouldn’t invited the Japanese leaders over to witness the power of the nuclear bombs. I think that North Korea, and Iran are making trying to make more weapons because other countries like THE U.S, China and Russia have a lot of nukes which equals power, and North Korea and Israel want more power. it is not Ironic that the big five try to stop smaller countries from making nuclear weapons. because if Big five stopped North Korea, or Iran from making nuclear weapons, and then went to war with them they would have a huge advantage . I don’t think we will live in a world without Nuclear weapons, because having nuclear weapons equals power. Nuclear weapons do have a positive affect because small countries wouldn’t invade a country that could easily wipe them off the map. I don’t think that countries like the United States, and Russia should have a lot of nuclear weapons because an accident could happen, and what’s the point of having weapons if you’re not going to use them. I think that nuclear weapons are not a necessity, and will only bring chaos, and destruction to the world, which his already filled with enough problems.
16. Cory Shanbom April 15, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    It was definitely not worth it. The bomb was an unnecessary evil that did much more harm than good. The bomb also cost a whole lot of money and our country had just been hit by the great depression. Debt was something that we didn’t need more of as a country
    1.The amount of nuclear missiles that we have, that are capable of being launched is very scary. Iran and North Korea are responding to the amount of warheads but also a big factor in this is also that both of these countries are very power-driven countries (especially North Korea) and they don’t want to be the tiny forces they are now. I believe that even if we didn’t have the amount nuclear missiles we do have, these countries would still be trying to make them to gain control as a nuclear power.
    2. Living in a world without nuclear bombs will never happen. We now hide behind nuclear bombs as protection and as a source of leverage.The day we rid ourselves of the nuclear bomb is the day we find an even greater weapon capable of more damage that the Nuclear Bomb could deal. The world without the nuclear bomb would be a much safer place but the truth is, is that there are too many to just get rid of now and not enough of a drive to rid the world of them.
    3. During the cold war the nuclear race was a race of intimidation. The country that had the most power would ultimately have the most weapons. There was no logic involved in the construction of all those bombs . The goal was power, not destruction.Nuclear winter was never intended by either side, only pure intimidation and power struggle.
17. Audrey K. April 16, 2012 at 12:13 am

    In my opinion, spending such an extreme amount of money on the nuclear program not worth it, however I believe the use of them in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was worth the cost. The government faced a huge decision on whether or not to bomb Japan, which would benefit the United States by putting Japan in their place, and essentially ending the War. Roosevelt main the executive decision to create a top secret project called the Manhattan project, where they would develop the worlds most powerful weapons. Once the nuclear bomb was created and dropped in August of 1945. Despite the fact that many japanese citizens died, the overall goal that Roosevelt wanted to achieve had been successful, and the price that we had to pay to create this nuclear bombs was in the end worth it.
    After this event was over, the development of nuclear bombs should have ceased. Instead, the development of these weapons continued well into the Cold War. It was around this time that I believe America spent way to much money on a program that had grown out of fear. The United States government felt threatened by the USSR’s nuclear power. Now that we have been exposed to that fear, I feel like the United States will continue to produce nuclear weapons well into the future. Although there is currently no reason or threat that would tempt us to use them, we live in constant fear of a sudden outbreak or attack onto our country. But, spending such a deal of money on an unnecessary nuclear program has been a waste since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
18. Jeffrey Couger April 16, 2012 at 12:17 am

    don’t think NK and Iran’s desperate attempts to make a nuclear weapon are a complete correlation to the U.S. belligerence or possession of thousands of nukes but I do think it has a definite factor in the issue considering these countries are groping for more power and the U.S has been known as a world power for years. I do find it slightly ironic that their possession of nukes jeopardizes their safety rather than protect them like they plan. I also think that they are doing this for more than just safety, but also, these countries would like to achieve the level of power that the big five nuclear powers hold.
    2. I don’t believe we will ever live in a world free of nuclear bombs in less another more intense weapon is mass-produced. This is because war is never ending, and countries are always trying to gain power and develop an upper hand on their enemies. To achieve that goal would be almost impossible because some organized groups may attain these weapons without the governments knowledge- making it impossible to regulate things they don’t know are there. A parallel can be drawn to cocaine in that it is illegal, but it can still be found. To achieve this goal, countries might have to organize on a grander scale (even more than the U.N) because every country would have to agree that it is an issue. In other words, it is very unlikely even though it would be great.
    3. I think the U.S and Soviet Union possessed so many Nukes in the mid 1980’s because the Cold War was a war based on the economy rather than warfare- it was; which country can spend more money on ridiculous weapons that will never be used? Once again, each country would have so many weapons not so much for launching, but to show off.
19. Tessa Passarelli 4th hour April 16, 2012 at 6:08 am

    Nuclear bombs are a great threat to all. No one knows when a country could use their in war. It was not worth the development of the nuclear bombs starting in 1940 for anything. According to Brooking’s Institute, nearly $5, 821 billion has been spent on US production and employment of atomic bombs from 1940 to 1996. At the moment we are $15, 627,761,704,955.12 in debt. Though stopping the atomic weaponry unit wouldn’t be a huge difference, we would have less debt and less of a threat to ourselves and other nations. Socially and politically speaking, our atomic bomb unit is a threat to treaties and alliance we have around the world. When we make alliances but continue to build our atomic weapons arsenal, nations get nervous and try to build their own units up in case we decided to switch sides. This causes a lot of tension in the groups and eventually the fear turns to hatred and they turn on us. Cultural wise, the atomic bomb can separate a nation due to race of the people in the country. When America dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, all Japanese-Americans turned against the government because that was their land and their people they had killed. The Hiroshima bombing forced Americans to choose sides on the debate-should we have dropped the bomb. Usually these sides were picked with ethnic ties and personal beliefs, but they still left the nation divided. The war was supposed to have ended soon and Japan was basically defeated-we didn’t need to go and kill innocent civilians to make a point. Now, after the Cold War and Russia and the US having many atomic weapons, many countries are arming themselves to feel more protected-this could lead to high tensions between the country and if there is war, they may be used against others and cause significant harm.
    1. I believe NK and Iran’s attempts at nuclear weapons are a reaction to the US possession of thousands of nukes. No one knows what we’re going to do with them, so they want their own to feels after. It is not ironic that they want nuclear power but the Big Five keeps it away-the Big Five want to make sure no one gets too much nuclear power to be a huge threat to everyone and start a panic.
    2. I do not think we can live in a world totally free of nuclear bombs-people want to make sure they’re always protected and ready for anything. However, if we can try to get rid of many of the bombs, say have a standard number that everyone is allowed to have, they could drop significantly and the pressure between all the countries would decrease tremendously.
    3. I believe the U.S. and Soviet Union had so many nuclear bombs at the height of the Cold War because neither side knew what the other was doing and it made them crazy and since no one knew if they were going to war or not they wanted to be sure that the other knew how much power they had and how they were ready at any time. Each country owns thousands of weapons for their own safety and so others know that they are ready at any time.
20. Piper S. April 16, 2012 at 8:09 am

    I do not think the nuclear bombing in Japan was worth “it”. The bombing just made other countries want to make bigger and better bombs that would cause even more destruction. This was demonstrated a few years later in the cold war. I believe that it was not the best thing to do in the situation because in the article ‘The Final Act’ it says that Japan was very close to surrendering. The nuclear bomb is way too dangerous; the way it can just disintegrate many people in a flash should have been very frightening to the U. S. government. The bombings killed over 200,000 Japanese citizens and most of them were innocent. Even if it did end war, it still started a new one. Plus, the fact that it was used in a populated area of people instead of a military base made things even more unjust.
    One of the major issues in the Cold War was the production and usage of these new weapons. The number of the nuclear weapons went soaring during the Cold War. This happened most likely because after using the nuclear bombs in Japan, other countries were fearful and they wanted to protect their country and its people just in case. The nuclear bombings have left quite a legacy because of the debate of whether it was necessary or not. The nuclear bombs became how you got power back then; and they are still a huge threat now considering how more technically advanced we are these days. Nuclear weapons will probably never go away because of the U.S. decision to use them during the war; the nuclear weapon was not worth the costs of losing a lot of money and people.
21. Kevin Dagenais April 16, 2012 at 10:25 am

    In my opinion, even though the atomic bombed killed many back then and is still affecting Japan today, was worth the cost. Japan would not surrender and the U.S needed to find a way to make them to. If we hadn’t dropped the bomb, then we would have to invade Japan with other European countries which would create more causalities than the atomic bomb did. Many civilians would die, and many more cities would be completely destroyed, instead of just Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Another reason why I believe this was worth the cost is because it made us more confident in our military power. Every country began to be scared of us because they believed that the same thing could happen to their country. Considering the fact that no one had knew about the atomic bomb nor had the technology to create one. Basically, the United States became a country to not mess with. The final reason why I believe that all of this was worth it because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and we needed to get them back for that. Not only that, but kamikazes were introduced and this killed many Americans and destroyed many ships. I believe that this type of behavior is unacceptable, although it is war, so the first bomb was a very good idea. Although I believe the first bomb was worth it but the second one was not. I think that the U.S should had given Japan more time to surrender instead of only three days. Maybe if Japan had more time, they would have surrendered before we dropped the second bomb.
22. Kurt M. April 16, 2012 at 10:29 am

    I think that the nuclear bomb was definitely not worth the cost because, it cost the United States two billion dollars to make the “Little Boy” and we only could use it once. I think that if we could have mass produced the “Little Boy” then it could be worth putting two billion dollars into its research. The main reason, in my opinion, to build all of these atomic bombs was to prove to other countries that we had the resources and the technology to build what we wanted whenever we wanted. The idea to actually drop the bomb on a country was a very bad idea because, even though it ended the problems between the Japanese and the Americans for a short time, the effects would last for a longer time than anticipated. Once we proved that Americans where at the top, all of the other countries where trying to top the United States and make a more powerful bomb then the U.S. Another reason that all countries wanted to make these bombs was to prove that they were powerful and to back them up in case they actually needed to use the bombs during a war. The “Little Boy” in my opinion was necessary to show everyone the effects of the bombs that we could make. However, I feel that the bomb that bombed Nagasaki did not need to happen. The U.S. had already proved to the world that we were capable of making these bombs. It is hard to say whether or not the nuclear bomb program was useful for the U.S. because, in some ways it was very useful and in other ways, the amount of money that the U.S. had used was very expensive. So, my overall opinion of the bomb program using two billion dollars would be that it wasn’t worth it.
23. Grant Bail April 16, 2012 at 10:33 am

    I don’t believe I can answer this question. While they’re many pros to having nuclear weapons, from international prestige to enhanced security, there are equally just as many cons to having nuclear weapons. While I do believe that having nuclear weapons is needed in today’s world, it does increase this chance of a nuclear holocaust. I propose a solution; every country is allowed to build and deploy nuclear weapons, but they are not allowed to be deployed in any areas which are global “hot spots” as defined by the U.N, with no one on the Security Council allowing to veto these proposals. However, no nation should have more than 200 weapons. This would allow a country a minimum of deterrence, and would contribute overall to world peace. I do believe that because of the lack of oversight on the original nuclear powers, this made today’s nuclear powers very wary of the originals, so they were persuaded to build their own weapons. Also, I believe nuclear weapons were worth the cause. Nuclear weapons allowed the U.S to persuade foreign combatants, strengthen our allies, and put immense pressure on the Soviet Union, eventually leading to collapse. Although necessary during the Cold War, having thousands of nuclear weapons is hard to justify today. Because of the multipolar world we live in today, it shouldn’t be just the United States’ role to provide nuclear protection. European and Asian powers should provide it too, with the U.S providing it for the America’s. If this leads to more weapons being built and deployed, so be it, because it would make a safer world overall. While nuclear weapons are abhorrent and killed thousands of people in Japan, they are needed for global security in this chaotic world.
24. Kevin Chien April 16, 2012 at 10:42 am

    No, the development of the nuclear bombs in the 1940s was not worth the cost and the impact it left on the world. Besides the massive death toll on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the monetary, social, political, and cultural impact on America and the rest of the world was far too great. The development of the nuclear weapon under the Manhattan Project cost an extensive amount of money and there was simply no need to drop a bomb on Japan, let alone 2 of them. It has been said that Japan would have surrendered within a couple of weeks anyway so dropping 2 bombs was a little over the top. Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was completely unnecessary. Dropping the bomb was a waste of resources and money in my opinion, and the lasting impacts and fear it brought over the world was completely avoidable. The dropping of the bomb sparked the Cold War, where other countries tried to develop their own nuclear weapons in order to feel some security from the other nations who already had them. The Cold War sprouted a lot of fear in many people, that at any given point we could be nuked by the Soviet Union. According to the Brookings Institute Article, America spent about $3.64 billion per year during the Cold War, which estimates to about $152.24 billion overall. This amount of money is so unnecessary to spend on a war where there really wasn’t any fighting; it was really just a war on fear. The impact the dropping of the “ Little Boy” and the “Fat Man” left on the world is still felt even today.

    1.I believe that NK and Iran wanted to have nukes mostly because the United States has them. Those countries want to feel secure and safe so if we have a weapon that they don’t, then they must have it in order to have a better sense of security.
    2.I do not think we will ever live in a world without nukes because no country or nation will just give up their nukes because there is no guarantee that every other country will do the same and there is no guarantee that the other countries will keep their promise. If we gave up our nukes, then there will always be a fear that some other nation has them and could attack at any moment and we would be helpless.
    3.I think the United States and the Soviet Union had so many nuclear weapons between the two of them because each country wanted to feel superior, they wanted to have the most nuclear weapons so they could be the greatest threat and the greatest superpower. That’s what the Cold War was all about, each country wanted to feel superior over the other. If so few weapons could be used to drastically alter the Earth’s atmosphere, I think that both countries had so many because they would never want to give them up. They didn’t care that the bombs could change the climate, they just wanted to use their nuclear weapons to hide behind, and if they had nukes then nobody would want to attack them.
25. Hank Wikol April 16, 2012 at 10:44 am

    I do think that the money spent was well worth it. I do understand that we spent a ridiculous amount of money, but that happens in every war. The cost was definitely well worth it in just World War II. This is because the Atomic bomb that we dropped on Japan ultimately won us the war and saved many American lives. We essentially showed the rest of the world whose boss and who not to mess with. In terms of the Cold War, I see it this way. It was going to happen no matter what. We were going to start a war with each other based on fear of nuclear weapons. But the nuclear weapons that we spent money on helped us win that war and helped end the Soviet Union. If we didn’t spend a lot of money on these nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t have any. This would give the Soviets control over us because we would have no way to retaliate their nuclear strike. Spending money on these weapons avoided a nuclear war and saved millions of American lives. The only area where the making of these weapons was not worth it was socially. It’s hard to have a decent amount of world peace when a country at any point could launch a nuclear missile and destroy us. This is the only area where it wasn’t worth it. In every other aspect, I believe that the making of nuclear bombs averted nuclear war and saved a ridiculous amount of lives.
26. Alex E-s April 16, 2012 at 10:51 am

    1. No it is funny that how nuclear weapongs keep people safe yet, they also keep the countries in danger from developed countries like ouselves. In the ned third world countries will continue to make nuclear weapons and nukes. Cause all the other developed countries have them. It is a status symbol it shows are big strong and tough you are. It will give the country a sense of pride and accomplishemtn. So in the end yes I do think that these nations will continue to create and test nuclear weapons in hopes to accquire them.
    2.We will never have a world free of nuclear weapons. They will be used to police other countries as well as threaten other countries. It will be something smaller undeveloped nations will strive for. It is a way to measure strength and influence. It will save and slay us as humans. We will live and die through the nukes.
    3. The US and soviets had so many nukes to counterbalance the others weapons .Since you have 2 I will have 3 and so on and so forth until it got completely out of hand. I can imagine they did it out of fear as long as we have this many nukes we will be safe. We can protect ourselves if we have more. As long as we have more than those Americans we will be fine. So i nthe end the more nukes they had they felt they could be safer. It was also a race to see who could make more and as a status symbol and it showed how much influence and stregth and power each nation had. Comapred to the other. So if one had so many then the other was weaker or had less influence.
27. Bethany Rivera April 16, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    1.The cost of nuclear war far is far too much. The number of lives nuclear bombs have taken and continue to take far out numbers of benefits that they hold. Not only is the number of fatalities too high but the cost in monetary value is also too high. During the duration of the Cold War the U.S spent around 3.6 billion dollars on nuclear bombs that have not been used. Currently the U.S has spent nearly 5.8 trillion dollars on nuclear weapons since 1940. None of these bombs or weapons have been used in recent years so there is not point is making them and spending money on having them because countries are too afraid to use them because of the effects that they cause. 
    2.I don’t think that it is possible to live in a world without nuclear weapons. Possibly in the future when nuclear is surpassed by something newer, “better”, and more effective. Only then do I think that the world will get ride of nuclear weapons.  
    3. I think that they possessed so many nuclear weapons just because  they were afraid of each other and didn’t trust each other. Fear causes people to do things that they would not normally do and cause them to spend more money. I don’t think that anyone that is living now that was not alive during the Cold War will be able to say why there were so many bombs. The U.S and the Soviet Union were afraid of each other and that’s why I think they had so many bombs.
28. Oran Lieberman April 16, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    I believe that dropping the bomb was worth it. I have reached this decison because in my opinion dtopping the bomb and the repercussions that came along with ot were inevitable. The dropping of the bomb was goong to haopen because the war had to end and the only weapon to sacrifice no American lives and still be strong enough to end the war was the atic bomb. And although many say that if we had never created the bomb then h bombs wouldnt have been developed either, i disagree with this as well. I disagree with this because no matter what, the threat of having a bomb that powerful would have raised fear on its own wothout it being dropped. This fear wouldve created the competition for the most powerful bomb and as technology evovled, eventually no matter what happened with the actual dropping of the bomb, hydrigen bomba wouldve been developed because the race for the most powerful weaoon coincides with the race for the most powerful country. These are my thoughts on why the bomb was worth it and why it was bound to happen. Thank you very much and have a great day
29. Grace Lee April 16, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    It was not worth the cost. Yes, the nuclear bombs forces Japan to surrender, but we could have found ways to push their limits and win the war with different means. With other ways, it is very likely that less lives would have been lost as a result, especially considering that the radioactivity is still harming citizens of Hiroshima today. I do think that nuclear bombs would have been created anyways because we obviously weren’t influenced by other countries’ doings when creating the Little Boy, but the results of its destruction on Hiroshima have triggered numerous building projects for more “Little Boy”s. For nations like NK and Iran, their actions are very secretive, but one thing we know for sure is that they want more power and want to show the world, that they have lots of power so it’s not unexpected of them to have nuclear missiles or other atomic weapons. The reason they look to these is because of our bombing on Hiroshima. These nations want to scare the rest of the world that they know that not only a repeat, but a stronger, much more explosive reoccurrence of the Hiroshima bombing is enough to do so.

    Another reason that the bombing wasn’t worth the cost was because of all of the lives lost. We’ll never know how many we had to kill before the Japanese surrendered, if we didn’t use the atomic bomb, but from a moral standpoint, this was too much. Yes, we wanted to intimidate them and show them our power, but we didn’t have to at this much of an extent.
30. Marisa W. April 16, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Honestly, I never believed that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or any nuclear weapons for that matter, were ever worth the cost. Even if some people could think of reasons to justify the attack (Pearl Harbor, Japanese resistance, etc.), they were always outweighed by the reasons the attack was just a big show that attempted to show off American power, but really conveyed American stupidity, greed, arrogance, and just plain monstrosity. As seen in the photo documentation of the tragedy, the casualties suffered by the thousands of innocent Japanese civilians were like scenes from a horror movie. The results of the Pearl Harbor attack were like a scuffed knee in comparison! The Japanese government was already on the verge of surrender because many Japanese cities had already been devastated in an already tragic war, and they knew they couldn’t take much more. In fact, if it weren’t for the unconditional surrender policy communicated by the Americans, the Japanese wouldn’t have been trying so hard to resist defeat! All this destruction and violence could have been avoided if the people in charge of U.S. military activity had just been more lenient toward the conditions of surrender. Seeing all the misery caused by the actions of The U.S. in the photo documents made me incredibly ashamed and disappointed in my country. None of it was worth it. Even if the first bombing was necessary for Japanese surrender, the bombing of Nagasaki was just going too far. According to the list of pros and cons, one of the biggest reasons the bomb was dropped in the first place was because the government had already spent a lot of money on its development, and they didn’t want to waste. Now, because of the use of the first atomic bomb by none other than the US of A, other countries are racing to create nuclear weapons of their own to protect themselves from a possible nuclear war. I just don’t think any of this misery was worth a few minutes of fame, or infamy.
31. Alexis Zerafa April 16, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    I do not believe the world will ever be totally free of nuclear bombs. Unless one country specifically set out to destroy nuclear weapons, probably through the use of nuclear weapons, its just not happening. I think we were in possession of so many nuclear bombs during the height of the cold war because each time one country got more. The other one had to compete with it in order to feel safe in case of an impending nuclear attack. A country would make so many nukes even though a nuclear winter was possible probably because they didn’t know the effect that all of the bombs could have. Also I don’t think they had any intention of setting them all off at once because tats frankly overkill. Cost wise I really don’t believe using a nuke was necessary, but then again I don’t believe that using a nuke was necessary either. Also the loss of life and ling term effect was a much higher cost than any amount of money. Homes and families destroyed just makes it more devastating, along with the terrible cultural impact, and fear it instilled into so many people. Also the fact that other countries tried to get nuclear weapons in order to feel some security from the nations who currently possess them is just sad. Also having more terrible weapons in the world is just bad, and has no benefit whatsoever. Imagine fighting a world war where only nukes were used. Let me tell ya it wouldn’t last long. :]
32. Gabrielle Clary April 16, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    1. I think NK and Iran’s desperate attempts to make a nuclear bomb is an act to be seen as a threat to other countries like the big five nuclear powers because weapons mean power and the stronger the weapon the more “respect” you get. It is ironic that they seek safety under these nukes sense the big five nuclear powers do whatever it takes to keep them from possessing these nukes , I think its selfish to put your country at risk just for a weapon that makes you look good but in reality it only causes harm.
    2. I don’t think we will ever live in a world free of nuclear bombs because the recipe to make one is already out there so someone is always going to use that as a threat to get whatever they want. To achieve that goal we would have to shred any piece of document that would help make a atomic bomb but that’s just about impossible since there are more smart people who are capable of coming up with another recipe for an atomic bomb so then you would probably have to give a death penalty or harsh sentence of anyone who seems to be making an atomic bomb but that just leads to another witch hunt like the red scare and the Salem Witch trials.
    3. I think the Soviet Union and the U.S had so many nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war because the countries didn’t know to what extinct each of them would go to , to be seen as the victor during the war. The soviets were communists who seemed cold blooded and the U.S had already dropped a bomb on Japan without any warning. The countries had thousands of weapons out of fear of being unprepared.
33. Mitchell August April 16, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    Mitchell August
    4/16/12
    Mr. Wickersham APUSH

    1. The United States of America being in possession of the nuclear bombes pushed other countries such as Iraq into the race to create them. The idea of the world’s super power having a weapon that does such great damage is appealing to anyone, especially a country with less military power. The weapons of mass destruction today are something to fear, especially if found in the wrong hands, and other countries feel the need to have this power. It is ironic that countries strive to obtain these weapons just to conjure a sense of safety while all of the world’s super powers exert all necessary energy to keep the weapons out of their hands. I don’t believe the other countries are looking to use these weapons in a war, I believe that the countries want these weapons for the threat of them. Nuclear weapons establish you as a super power and provide the entire world with an understanding of your power.

    2. In the modern world, now that nuclear bombs exist there will never be a time where they are not present. However nuclear bombs could be out done by technology and replaced with more powerful weapons. Unless this happens the worlds most powerful weapon will be something to strive for and something nearly possible to eliminate.

    3. Nuclear weapons are a symbol of intimidation more so than a weapon. These countries possessed so many nuclear weapons in order to intimidate and force the ultimate surrender of the other nation. However it had the opposite affect; both countries continued to produce weapons of mass destruction and were not intimidated by each other.
34. Jackie F April 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    1. I’m not sure the cost is worth it. I don’t like the idea of so many nuclear active warheads and countries constantly threatening each other with them, but not having our own won’t prevent other countries from obtaining them. I do think that even if we have our own nuclear warheads and use them for whatever reason, it won’t do much to stop other countries from bombing us. I’m not really sure what to think about it, the defense of the nation is important but whether we have nuclear weapons or not, we’re still in danger by them. Usually the answer to this kind of problem is go bigger or go home, but with nuclear warheads it seems as if we reached the biggest. Any bigger and the earth could literally not take it anymore; potentially risking upsetting the global climate. So I’m really not sure it’s worth the money arming ourselves with all these nuclear warheads if they won’t do much to protect us. In 1945 when we were the only ones who had them, then yes I would say it is definitely worth it, but now everyone is caught up and at a standstill, I don’t know if it’s worth it anymore. Especially since “go bigger or go home” doesn’t work in this scenario anymore.
35. Renata B. April 16, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    I do not believe that the US dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was worth it. Not only did it kill thousands upon thousands of innocents, but it also started a nuclear arms race that could still be unleashed one day and destroy many more things than what would have happened if we would have invaded Japan.
    1. I believe that North Korea’s and Iran’s desperate attempt to make a nuclear weapon was caused by the US’ possession of thousands of nukes. I do find it ironic that even though they are trying to protect themselves with a nuclear weapon, it will lead them to more troubles with the world and in the future. Nuclear Weapons are also a double edged sword in some ways. Although they could protect a country, they also are able to harm the country that originally used it in the long run due to the effects that these sorts of weapons have on the planet.
    2. I don’t believe that we will ever live in a world free of nuclear weapons. Too many people in this world seek power, even if that power could end up backfiring on them. With the current rulers of the world, people would not agree to give up their weapons. Even if they did make an agreement like that, they would most likely be hiding one from plain sight. Also, there will always be countries like North Korea that like to flaunt their military’s strength. Because of these things, it would be considered naive to think that such a thing like that would happen now after the first nuclear bomb was used.
    3. I believe that the US and Soviets had thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons, even if just 100 of them would cause a nuclear winter, is due to the fact that the more weapons someone has, the more dangerous they appear. However, all I think of when I hear one thousand nuclear weapons is how those are going to effect the planet, not how powerful the country is that holds them.
36. Sara Pawloski April 16, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    In my opinion, I don’t think that the nuclear bomb was worth the cost. First of all, there were tons of innocent lives lost due to the dropping of the bomb in Japan. I think that there could have been better ways to deal with Japan than turning to a nuclear weapon to solve their problems. They could have planned an attack on a less populated area where less innocent lives would have be taken, which would have still gotten their point across. Also, before the U.S nuked Japan, Japan was planning on surrendering and whether President Trueman was aware of this or not, I feel that it should have been an important deciding factor on whether or not to drop the bomb. If Japan was planning on surrendering anyway, then there would be no need for the bomb which would waste money, take countless lives and began the cold war. The cold war was ultimately a competition to see what country could possess the most nuclear weapons. Had the U.S never have created and successfully used the first nuclear weapon, other countries wouldn’t have felt the need to make their own nuclear weapons. The U.S and their nuclear weapons was seen as a huge, powerful threat to other countries, which made the other countries want to have ways that they could protect themselves incase attacked. Although it was important for the U.S to bring a halt to Japan’s terrible actions and to give them the message to never pull a stunt like Pearl Harbor again, the way the U.S went about this was uncalled for and overly drastic. The way I look at it, the bombing of Japan only led to further problems when these problems could have been avoided if the U.S. could have waited it out a little longer to se if Japan surrendered which was highly likely, and if that didn’t work, they could have made a less drastic move that didn’t involve nuclear weapons to still prove their point, that the U.S was not to be messed with.
37. Marcella Apollonia April 16, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    I think it all depends on how the situation is looked at. In some ways it was necessary to drop the bombs because if they had invaded Japan more American soldiers would have lost their lives. it was also the most rational choice in order to end the war in the quickest way. Unfortunately that also meant the lose of thousands of innocent lives. The making of the bombs also helped the economy by creating jobs. However, the negative aspect of the bombs is that it did cost the U.S billions of dollars that could have been used for other things. The owning of the bomb was meant to intimidate other countries and it worked, but now the number of atomic weapons is increasing because other countries don’t feel safe against us. I think why NK and Iran have decided to create nuclear weapons is because they feel helpless. with 70,000 nuclear weapons worldwide it is not a surprising reaction. Countries such as Iran are so scared and intimidated by countries like the U.S they are willing to jeopardize the wellbeing of their citizens in order to have some sense of security. I think the reason why America and the Soviet Union had possessed so many nuclear weapons is because with them brings power. If one country has the most atomic weaponry they will be seen as the biggest and most powerful threat to all other nations. With all the technological advancements being made with atomic weapons these days i find it to be almost impossible to ever live in a world without them. It might be ideal but history has shown time and time again that the quest for power will always prevail. With nations always trying to out do one another in order to feel secure the elimination of atomic weapons will never come, in fact it’s more likely that even more powerful weapons will be created. It is sad to think that countries need all these weapons but without them nations don’t stand a chance against others that do own atomic bombs. We have basically made it a necessity to own atomic weapons even if they are never used because without them countries would be getting destroyed left and right. I think that if we did live in an ideal world where such powerful weapons didn’t exists that at some point they would because all conflicts come down to who has the most power.
38. Kaitlin Flaherty -- 3rd Hour April 16, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    I do think that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was necessary. Yes I release the horrible and devastating affects it had on Japan, but President Truman believed that it would help bring American troops home sooner (and more of them too). I believe that Truman had a difficult choice to make, but I think he made the right one. If he didn’t drop the bomb then more American lives would have been lost in the longer process to winning the war. And what if Truman decided not to drop the bomb and the public discovered that the government had a chance to bring home American men who were fighting for their lives in the Pacific. Yes there were other ways he could have handled the situation but I think that this one was the most affective. But I think that the second bomb was over kill. The US only gave Japan only 3 days to response, before they dropped the second one. I think that if we gave Japan more time they would have surrendered. And if they didn’t surrender in 7-10 days, then maybe dropping the second bomb would have been acceptable.

    1. No I don’t think that North Korea or Iran should get nuclear weapons because I believe that no one should have them. I mean having a bunch of nuclear weapons laying around when you have a ton of countries at war is just asking for something bad to happen. I can understand why NK and Iran would want nuclear weapons. I mean when you have these other countries that have tons of them lying around it makes you desire them even more. For example the iPhone, I think that everyone I know either has or wants an iPhone. The ones who want it don’t just want it for the unlimited games and apps, they want because EVERYONE has it.
    I guess it is kind of ironic that the Big five nuclear powers focus their time on preventing countries like Iran and NK from having nuclear weapons. It seems more hypocritical to me though.

    2. No, I do not think the world will ever get rid of all nuclear weapons, unless a new more powerful and deadly is invented. I don’t think that there will ever be a time where a country doesn’t have nuclear weapon, mostly because all these countries know how deadly they are and they can hold the weapons over our heads and have the attitude that ‘if you attack us we will drop these bombs on you’.

    3. Absolutely there were too many weapons between the US and the Soviet Union. Like 70,000 weapons, really? All those weapons could literally back fire on you, destroying the country you were trying to protect. And if that did ever happen it wouldn’t just affect our country it would affect the world, actually it would kill it.
39. Iain Mason April 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    In my opinion, I believe that the building of the nuke was not worth it at all. In the 1940’s we were in the midst of a depression that had devastated the economy yet again in America. This nuclear weapon was a want, not a need, which was utterly selfish of the government to make. The only pro of making this nuclear weapon was that non-allies would fear us even more, than they already had before. This nuclear weapon was not worth all the lives that were taken away from innocent Americans and Japanese. Japan didn’t have enough time to recover from the first bomb in Hiroshima, and were absolutely shocked when the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. In Truman’s belief, he had showed an “example” of what the Americans were capable of doing from the first atomic bomb. The second bomb was only to exploit his power and punish Japan when they had not surrendered to the United States.
    1. I do believe that the UK and Iran’s attempt to make a nuclear weapon are reactions to the belligerence of the U.S. and its thousands of nukes it possess. It is ironic that the Big five nuclear powers focus on preventing them from getting those nukes though both countries seek safety to possess them. They didn’t intend for that to happen, but wanted to aim for bigger and better things.
    2. I do not think we will ever live in a world free of nukes because people are selfish. One of the countries in our world needs a certain advantage over other countries. A powerful weapon such as this nuke would be the greatest example. Even if the world passed a law preventing the use or manufacture of nukes, I believe that many countries would secretly deal and create them.
    3. The trust between both countries, I believe, was the main reason that so many nuclear weapons were used. It was almost like a competition to see who could blow up more nukes. As in the space race that was later to come, the rivalry between America and Russia was just beginning…
40. Dominic Gutierrez April 16, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    I think the American government that was assigned the task of planning of building and how to use the bombs that we used in World War Two and the making of more than our competitors was well planned out they knew what they were getting in to and they had to do this to win the war. I don’t think that money spent at that time during the depression and how much we spent on them today when we should be spending it on more important and specific things. But we had to throughout that time period till now it wasn’t our decisions to make up a necessary one at that. 1. Do you think NK and Iran’s desperate attempts to make a nuclear weapon are a reaction to the U.S. belligerence or possession of thousands of nukes? Is it ironic that they seek safety in the possession of a nuke yet at the same time it jeopardizes their nation’s safety b/c the Big Five nuclear powers focus their energies on preventing them from getting that nuke? Yes I think NK and Iran’s desperate attempts to make nuclear weapons are a reaction to the U.S belligerence or possession of thousands of nukes. They have as many nukes for some of the reasons that we have so many. To protect us and it’s a competitive race if they have more than were screwed so we need more. It is pretty ironic for seeking safety for building more nukes even when we as Americans are trying to take away or prevent other countries from having nukes. 2. Will we ever live in a world free of nuclear bombs? What would it take to achieve that goal? No I think we will never live in a free world with no nukes. There is always someone who will want, make, use, own nukes for power and other reasons why we have nukes in the first place and that there still around today. 3. Why do you think the U.S. and Soviet Union possessed so many nuclear bombs (estimated 70,000 between them) at the height of the Cold War tensions in the 1980s? Scientists have estimated that a hundred nuclear bombs detonating around the same time would be enough to trigger a “nuclear winter.” If so few weapons could hypothetically darken the Earth’s atmosphere for years, why would each country so many thousands of weapons? During the cold war this happen between the USSR and America because it what I said before when we had the first bomb and Russia turned into what they did at that time it was a race and the other opponent had to have the better edge.
41. Stephanie Timmis April 16, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    When thinking about war I do not recommend taking an emotional approach or even an ethical one for that matter. It is pretty difficult to justify the killing of any innocent people no matter what the circumstances are. Although, it would be irrational to take a diplomatic approach towards war, which is, why we must look through a logical lens in determining the ethics or emotions caused by the war. In the case of the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is definitely arguable that this was worth the costs and also that it was not. In determining this you must begin with strictly the facts and leave out any bias or feelings. For starters, although the dropping of this bomb cost a lot in development and also it may have led to an arms race and a cold war, the technological benefits we received from both the development and also the results of the attack were highly beneficial to the U.S. It is hard to say whether or not the arms race and the cold war would have occurred with the same intensity as they did had the atom bombs never been dropped, but it is safe to say that some sort of race for weapons technology would have ensued in the near future, and the development of these bombs and the dropping of them definitely gave the U.S a good lead and a strong sense dominance. The only problem with more war technology is that the U.S is not the only one to benefit. The dropping of this bomb not only led the U.S to increase their nuclear weapons arsenal, but also to many of our enemies to increase the amount of or attempt to create nuclear weapons. The U.S did establish a prevailing force in war, but aren’t we supposed to be leaders? I think that the U.S being the first to drop a bomb of such an epic, destructive, and cruel power does not exactly send the right message to other countries. Additionally, the dropping of a nuclear weapon poses a huge and, in my opinion, underrated effect on our environment. Not only the nuclear waste, but also the irreversible air pollution and ozone damage. The cost to attempt to clean up the mess was great to the U.S, but the permanent damage that the two atom bombs and any subsequent nuclear weapons has a greater effect to the rest of the world. The war itself, though, posed a more immediate threat to human lives. With a total number of deaths at more than 60 million and a total number of around 46 million civilian causalities, it is easy to empathize with Harry Truman’s decision to put a swift end to the war. Were hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives a fair cost to this swift end? I think, that if you add up all the pros and cons and even if you include the previous aggression by the Japanese, the ends just do not justify the means. The cost of civilian lives, the environment, and the increased capabilities of destruction held by countries around the world are not worth the technological advances, swift end to the war, and affirming of U.S dominance in war.
42. Jabrielle Johnson April 17, 2012 at 1:11 am

    I believe that the costs of having nuclear weapons are very detrimental in both costs and in the overall aftermath. They just should not be used, because having them are dangerous even if you are only planning to use them as self-defense or just to get back at the country that attacked you. Allowing the bombs to be in your possession can cause them to be used at any moment, no matter how big. The lives that are lost from using this one piece of machinery are very devastating. When the U.S decided to send two bombs, more innocent lives were lost in comparison to the people who actually initiated the bombing at Pearl Harbor. Since the U.S had bombs, many of the other countries wanted to have some to retaliate against the U.S if they had started bombing them, or to initiate war themselves. If the weapons aren’t there, I believe that there is no temptation. With nuclear weapons, I believe that there is never ending cycle and that if not handled the situation can get out of control. Not only would that country be affected heavily, but so is the entire world. The toxins used in nuclear weapons are very harmful and so therefore, nuclear weapons just shouldn’t be used altogether.
43. Clark L April 17, 2012 at 8:08 am

    The building of the nuclear arsenal was necessary at first to end WW2 and protect us from whiplash of other super powers. But as waeapon coutns skyrocketed into the thousands the bombs became an inherent danger to survival. The Cold War was caused by the insecurity of two superpowered countries because their opposition had control of nuclear weapons. Neither country would feel safe until they had more nuclear weapons than anybody, creating an effect that caused the two countries to build up an arsenal that could obliterate our planet. Not only are these nuclear weapons dangerous, but they are a symbol that humanity can go too far. We do not own our planet, and it is not our right to destroy it because we are insecure about the power one country wields compared to another. Nuclear weapons must be dismantled and destroyed before it creates a never ending cold war that would inevitably result in a nuclear winter, or the destruction of the entire planet. But at the time, it was hard to gauge what the dropping of a single, let alone two, nuclear bombs would cause. It created a ride to ruin that can only be stopped by an international peace council to dismantle and disarm ALL nuclear weapons before we bring ourselves to ruin.
44. Natalie S. 3rd Hour April 17, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    When talking about nuclear weapons, it is very hard to say what the right decision is. On one hand, you have to think about the safety of people everywhere and think about how morally right it is. Of course most people see that it is wrong to murder people like that, but then you have to think about the safety of yourself and your own country. What will we do if someone attacks us? This is why nuclear debates will never have a winner. The “protect ourselves” mentality is what made North Korea and Iran interested in getting nuclear weapons. This is, of course, counter productive because then the countries become targets. As soon as they are targets, more weapons will be produced. For this reason I don’t think it is possible to have a nuclear free world. As ideal as it sounds, countries aren’t trusting enough to do it. If there was a treaty or law saying that no countries could have any nuclear weapons or build any more, countries would assume that other countries were secretly building weapons and they would rush to make their own. The reason the US and Soviet Union had so many nukes during the cold war is competition and fear. They wanted to beat one another and thought that if they didn’t the other side wouldn’t hesitate to nuke them. A lot of this tension could have been avoided if we hadn’t bombed Japan. I see that it was effective in ending the war, but there could’ve been better ways of going about it. I don’t think that demonstrating a bomb is really wasting one. If the Japanese get scared enough to surrender, you’ve won without killing innocent people. If the Japanese don’t surrender, you still have one bomb to bomb them with.
45. Logan M - 2nd Hour April 18, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    I think it was worth the cost to start a nuclear bomb program. The total cost was about $5,821,000,000 between keeping it a secret and dropping the actual bomb on Japan. Although it is a high cost, it was necessary at the time. We were in the middle of a war with the Axis Powers. The Manhattan Project was begun to create the first ever atomic bombs. It brought the world a new type of warfare in which we had the advantage. After Pearl Harbor and other crises, we felt we must bomb Japan. 220,000 total Japanese were killed by the bombs and it left generational problems due to the radiation. Since it was the first atomic bomb on a city ever, we didn’t know the lasting effects or fully understand all the destruction. Now, I’m not debating whether we should have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I am talking about why the bomb was needed in general. The bomb’s political impacts included the Japanese surrendering, an international race to have the most nuclear weapons, and brought the Cold War. Between America and the Soviet Union, there were about 70,000 bombs. I believe it was a vanity thing and they wanted to prove omnipotence by having the most atomic bombs. Although 100 bombs going off would cause a nuclear winter, that wouldn’t necessarily stop the countries from fighting. The social impact was that it can be used in everyday vernacular. There is something called an atomic wedgie, which is when one is still in underwear and someone pulls up on the waistband trying to pull it over the receivers head. This makes sense that it’s an atomic wedgie (I hope this is what you meant by social effects). Also in today’s world, North Korea and Iran are still attempting to gain nuclear weapons. Their issue is that all the other nations with nuclear missiles already are preventing them. They want the nukes because they need nuclear power in order to take on other countries. It is ironic and almost comes in full circle in logic. I think that by now it is impossible for a world without nukes to exist. It has become such a major political topic for debate, and it would be very hard to disable all of those nukes in our country and in all the other ones. The atomic bomb was necessary then, but hard to get rid of now.
46. geoffwickersham (Post author) April 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    The nuclear bomb was not worth it, because it could have been easily avoided and it destroyed us money wise. The nuclear bomb was created in 1940, and that is only a year after we got out of the great depression. Since we just got out of the Great Depression we shouldn’t have been spending that kind of money, on something that we didn’t essentially need. The atomic bomb rebelliously turned against us in a negative way. Socially and politically speaking, our atomic bomb unit is a threat to treaties and alliance we have around the world. When we make alliances but continue to build our atomic weapons, nations get nervous and try to build their own units up in case we decided to switch sides. This causes a lot of tension in the groups and eventually the fear turns to hatred and they turn on us. Cultural wise, the atomic bomb can separate a nation due to race of the people in the country. When America dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, all Japanese-Americans turned against the government because that was their land and their people they had killed. The Hiroshima bombing forced Americans to choose sides on the debate-should we have dropped the bomb. Usually these sides were picked with ethnic ties and personal beliefs, but they still left the nation divided. The war was supposed to have ended soon and Japan was basically defeated-we didn’t need to go and kill innocent civilians to make a point. Now, after the Cold War and Russia and the US having many atomic weapons, many countries are arming themselves to feel more protected-this could lead to high tensions between the country and if there is war, they may be used against others and cause significant harm.
    1. I think that Iran’s and NK’s attempts to make nuclear weapons was defiantly a reaction to the U.S having nukes, and they didn’t want to feel like they had any less power than us. Of course they tried to make their own nukes in order to try and “scare” us and say you can’t be all powerful with your nuclear weapons because we have them as well. As their safety I see where they wanted to play it safe and try to get their own nukes in order to protect their land. But they do have to take in the fact that the Big Five nuclear powers are trying to stop them from getting any nukes.
    2. I do not believe that we will ever live in a world without nuclear bombs, because so many countries see their nuclear weapons as security blankets that they have stored away just in case a corrupt war breaks out. What all the countries would need to do in order for the world to have no nuclear weapons anymore. Is that all the countries need to sign a treaty that there will be no more nuclear weapons being made/hidden. Also all of the nuclear weapons that the countries have but be sent or fired out to sea.
    3. I believe that the U.S and the soviet had so many nuclear bombs was because of what I said that countries have nuclear weapons as security blankets to hold unless they are threatened by someone. The reason that the U.S and the soviets have some many Nuclear weapons in the Cold War was because they both felt threatened by each other, and they both kept intimidating each other with nuclear weapons. I don’t know think the countries knew what they were up against with how powerful these nuclear weapons were and how they could destroy our earth so easily. Countries had these weapons because they didn’t want to seem weak compared to other countries who had them.

    Anna
47. Sam Frederik - 3rd period May 3, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    It’s undeniable that the cost of the nuclear bomb was staggering in a variety of categories; money, time, effort, and, of course, casualties. However, these costs did bring an abrupt end to the bloodbath known as World War II. Personally, I stand undecided on the issue of the necessity of the A-bomb. I think that there is reasoning as to why the bombs were necessary, and reasoning as to why the bombs were unnecessary. On the necessary side, the Japanese were absolutely brutal when it came to fighting. They fought with kamikaze attacks, committing mass suicides to take out American ships, and battled relentlessly to the death to reclaim and secure numerous South Pacific islands. The United States only had two bombs ready by early August 1945, and although the possibility of pressuring Japan into surrender by displaying the power of the nuclear bomb on American land would have been a much less costly approach, we didn’t want to risk the possibility of the Japanese not surrounding while wasting an atomic bomb in the process. Although there were these as well as other reasons that the A-bomb was America’s best choice, there were consequences that may have been overlooked prior to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whether the U.S. was pressured into dropping the bombs to justify the $2 billion spent on the project or they didn’t acknowledge the significant outnumbering of civilians and soldiers (5 or 6:1, to be approximate) beats me. I believe it was good that the war was brought to an end in a matter of days, but such means may have not been necessary. Following the events in Japan, the nuclear bomb produced a ripple effect that reached countries all across the world and began the atomic frenzy that, soon after, triggered yet another war with a fellow ally of ours, the Soviet Union. The A-bomb was the iPhone of the mid-20th century; countries far and wide were scrambling to match the unprecedented power that the United States had created. The atomic bomb thus led to the worldwide fear of nuclear warfare that is still considered a threat today. North Korea’s attempt to build an atomic bomb, although proving to be a failure, only shows their further development and continued research into the science of nuclear weaponry. In closing, I can’t say that I believe the bomb was worth the cost or not. However, I do take into account the consequences and casualties that resulted from the A-bomb, and it is truly fascinating.
48. Weston Blum May 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    1. I think that the reason for their attempts at making nuclear weapons is because they need safety. Big, developed countries like The US and Russia have a lot of weapons. And when a country like that labels you as part of their “axis of evil”, you would probably feel pretty threatened. And this fine country of ours has a tendency to act when we say that we are going to, and sometimes when we do not say we are! So if we attack people when we say that they are our friends, and we label of as one of our primary enemies, you would try as hard to get good artillery in case of a war. And this is all giving them the benefit of the doubt! Odds are, that they’re preparing for the war that seems almost imminent and starting from China and Israel.
    2. The only way that we will live in a world free of atomic bombs is when they become so out of date. I’m sure that Homo Habillus was terrified that Grog might bonk him on the head with a dull rock at one point, but once Grog had a sharp rock, Homo Habillus didn’t worry about the dull rock anymore. Same for rocks and swords, swords and crossbows, crossbows longbows, longbows and cannons, cannons and guns, guns and huge guns, huge guns and bombs, bombs and huge bombs, and the cycle will never end! But we will live free of the fear of these particular bombs eventually, but not any time soon, and it will be just because there’s a bigger weapon. You don’t usually see people nowadays fearing longbows!
    3. I think that the USA and USSR had so many nukes because they were scared to death of the other one. We wanted a lot of nukes in case they nuked us, and they wanted a lot of nukes in case we nuked them. As we can now see in hindsight, no country was too eager to attack the other, so they were for defense; as a safety net, if you will. We both were afraid that the Cold War could get hot and if it did, both countries wanted to be hotter than the other guy.
49. Sarah Horvath May 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    I think that the bomb was worth the cost in many ways. Most importantly it helped America to end such a brutal war with minimum loss of American lives. That was very effective in ending the war and also demanding respect from all other nations that might have threatened America. It established America as the most powerful country in the world… until the Soviet Union caught up. However when America revealed that they had a nuclear weapon suddenly every other country feels they have to have to be secure. This is much like small children who want the newest toy that all their friends have. I don’t think that is was good to start a world-wide nuclear race because of all the destruction a nuclear war would cause. In that sense it was not at all worth developing the nuclear bomb, and setting off such a dangerous chain reaction. In my opinion, the less nuclear bombs out there, or in here for that matter, the better. The fewer bombs there are the smaller the chance that one may fall into the wrong hands. As for the toll that our bomb took on Japan, I would never endorse that killing of innocent people, but the human population is pretty healthy, in fact in my opinion there are way too many of us. But wiping off all life on earth is not the solution to any problem. People are never going to agree on everything. And we don’t like to compromise, but we have to careful not to start a nuclear war.
50. Marie Portes May 21, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    Was it worth it?
    I think the costs for these nuclear programs are beyond ridiculous. All this money was thrown into making a weapon so destructive and dangerous we can’t even make use of it. Not only that, but our acquiring nuclear power led to other countries looking for it too. They also lost money that could’ve been much better spent and now any war is way more risky than it would’ve been a century ago. Now that most major powers have this weapon and can harness nuclear power, every threat of war is extremely perilous. Inevitably, someone will decide to lauch one of these weapons and put a spark into the beginning of a nuclear war that could very easily be the end of mankind. It’s very scary to think about. It can be argued that is was worth it because of the power that the United States acquired thanks to it, but imagin what could’ve been done with all that money. There are so many people in need, that it seems ridiculous to be putting money into a program that will do nothing but destroy.