Using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...good idea?

If so, why not use the products of our superior technology in today's conflicts?

Take a neutron bomb for example. About the size of a basketball, the blast is no bigger than that of standard ordinance, will not result in any structural damage (except within the immediate blast zone), zero fallout, and the area is 100% safe to walk around in unprotected only moments after the initial blast. Perfect for targeting enemies held up in a small area of a town.

I assume the main argument FOR the use of the bomb in Hiroshima was so that we would not risk the lives of our soldiers by going forward with a standard invasion. So, why not have that mentality today?

(Before anybody starts having their standard hissy-fits, I am not suggesting nor condoning the use of nuclear weapons in any contemporary conflict by any party. This is merely a question for the sake of discussion.)

I thought about that when George Sr. was in office. I say start dropping 'em.

I am all for the dropping of everything and everyone on any other country, bombs away ....

In 1945 there was no one else with a similar weapon who could retaliate. Today the consequences are different.

Go for it.

Neutron bombs spit out a shitload of radiation IIRC.

The A-bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. Couldn't drop a nuclear weapon on any other country now though, the retaliation and aftermath (fallout, radiation everywhere, etc) would be far worse than the advantage gained by dropping a bomb.

Mr. dB said:

In 1945 there was no one else with a similar weapon who could retaliate. Today the consequences are different.

Click to expand...

Good point.

An interesting fact is that we had neutron weapons deployed in Vietnam, however opted for napalm instead because of the political concerns of using a weapon people only consider as "nuclear."

The irony is that napalm was far more devastating and sloppy (for the lack of a better term) than a neutron arsenal would have been.

if you knew what were at stakes then you would never say no. More people would have died if the A-bomb was not not used.

But I still believe that American's could have invited the Japanese Emporer to a A-bomb testing site and put on a little demonstration. Then wait for thier reaction.

crak600 said:

Neutron bombs spit out a shitload of radiation IIRC.

Click to expand...

Yes, but only remains volatile for 3-5 minutes, max. The radiation kills of the targets then evaoprates quickly, leaving the area safe for someone to walk around naked without worrying about exposure.

Subzeero said:

if you knew what were at stakes then you would never say no. More people would have died if the A-bomb was not not used.

But I still believe that American's could have invited the Japanese Emporer to a A-bomb testing site and put on a little demonstration. Then wait for thier reaction.

Click to expand...

Naw. I think it still would of been better to use more of them. A building doesn't cause much of a scare as a thousand screaming people...