Should the US have raced to build nuclear weapons?

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    During World War II, yes. By the time the Manhattan Project started in 1942, Germany was the powerhouse in Europe, swiping and occupying almost the entire continent. The Nazis was seem as an unstoppable force and they could have access to countries resources to build their first nuclear weapons. Hitler had no problem using them if they had it first since he was known for putting millions of Jews in death camps where they were slaughtered, invading nations for no reason, and bomb civilians from the air, sea, and artillery for the purpose of killing civilians. In response, the Allies were on the race to build theirs as well and the U.S. was the perfect place for its construction of nuclear weapons. We had more resources and more manpower to build one faster in the world and plus, our country were not subject to systematic bombing raids by the Axis because our country was surrounded between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean thousands of miles away from Europe and Japan. Also, we have tons of deserts that allows scientists to conduct our further research for nuclear weapons outside the public's view.

    In 1945, the U.S. and it's allies already built our nuclear weapons successfully. At the end of war in Europe, we found out that Germany didn't have much resources to build its nuclear weapons thanks to the Allied bombing raids that destroyed weapons-manufacturing plants, docks, oil fields, and other centers in Germany and other cities in nations that supported the Nazi war effort.

    The same thing for Japan, they didn't have much resources to build it either. The U.S. systematic incendiary raids on cities in the Japanese home islands throughout spring and summer of 1945 further makes it even harder for Japan to construct their nuclear weapons.

    We were justified to build our nuclear weapons during WWII because if the Nazis and Japan got one first, they would not hesitate to use them. Other countries would still use A-bombs in warfare even if they weren't used in WW2. Just imagine countries used it on each other in the Korean War without knowing the destruction capabilities and effects. WW3 would start from there. The A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved the world about horrible effects of A-bombs and vow to do anything to prevent them from happening again.

    During the Cold War, once it becomes possible to build such a thing after the USSR detonated its first nuclear bomb in 1949 and paved way for other nations to get one as well, it's better to have them than to not have them. The alternative is for one side not to have any nuclear weapons, but that of course leaves them wide open for a one-sided attack from another country who wouldn't have to be worried about getting blasted too. Therefore, the concept of Mutually Assured destruction was developed.

    Basically the premise is, if you have nuclear weapons and I have them, you won't launch on me because you know I will do the same and that we boom both countries are destroyed. The Soviet Union knew if they do, their country would be screwed and the world will be sucked into nuclear war.

    On the whole, at least for the past 50 years in the Cold War, they've been a good thing. Remember,

    World War II and World War I were huge, incredibly huge, expensive, conventional wars, that decimated much of the civilized world, killing millions of people worldwide.

    Well, since the civilized world created their nuclear stockpiles, we haven't had any such "great" conventional wars. And I think it's reasonable to say that the nuclear stockpiles are the reason for that.

    Because the leaders of all these great nations today know, that if they got into something like that, they would literally be fried in about 30 minutes after a nuclear attack. That gives a person perspective.

  • Gazza
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Atomic weapons used on Japan in the 2nd world war were developed by the USA, UK and Canada.

  • Joey T
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Yes, the use of them on civilians is debatable, but the race was on. I don't begrudge the US for wanting to be the first to have a successful test.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.