What are the reasons not to frop atomic bombs?

Answer 1

The question presupposes that it should not have been used. I don't agree.

This technology was going to get out sooner or later. If not used in WW2, it would have been used some other time. Until it was used once, the fear of it wouldn't be there. It's the fear of what we all saw in WW2 that has prevented it from being used again since.

The use in WW2 saved lives. That's not debateable. When you look at the ferocity of opposition the Japanese were putting up against every advance the US made, the invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been a bloody slog with FAR more projected deaths on BOTH SIDES than the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now, you could argue the use of a SECOND bomb at Nagasaki was unnecessary. That is a fair debate. But dropping AN atomic bomb if it hadn't happened in WW2 would have inevitably happened sooner or later. Whether the US did it or someone else did it.

Answer 2

Currently the most devastating and destructive weapon that can possibly be created by man. It can destroy countless things that have been painstakingly build by us. It produces horrid amounts of radiation that takes many decades, if not centuries to go away. It basically shreds buildings when it explodes; it makes the ground flat while doing so.

Answer 3

Humanitarian reasons were basically the opposition to dropping the bombs.

Answer 4

It can cause massive, unintentional, catastrophic damage to the biotic and abiotic environment.

Answer 5

Mostly because of the civilians victims. Almost all Japan's soldiers were dead at the time of the atomic bombs and most of the casualties were civilians.