Why Nukes Are One of Our Best Inventions

+2

Overview

In general, nuclear weaponry is seen as a terrible, atrocious, cancer-inducing, radiation poisoning, weapon of mass destruction which has the potential to destroy humanity. But in this blog, I'm going to argue why nuclear weapons are one of our best inventions in humankind history👍:)

Actual Damage

Nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice - in the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Don't get me wrong, it was a terrible thing to do, killing hundreds of thousands of people, most of them civilians, but it really wasn't that different to what we had already been doing. The fire-bombings of Tokyo killed anywhere from 80,000-130,000 and left over 1 million homeless. And there were hundreds of other individual bombing raids throughout WW2 alone.

Just compare that to if we had actually invaded the Japanese mainland: 250,000 - 1,000,000 allied and US troops would've died and anywhere from 5-10 million Japanese. So you could argue that using the atomic bombs actually saved more lives than they ended.

The only other damage that nukes have caused were when they were being tested, but even then, they were used in remote parts of Siberia, New Mexico, uninhabited islands of the Pacific, etc.

Mutual Assured Destruction

Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), is the idea that if country A fired nukes towards country B, country B would respond in turn, resulting in both countries being obliterated. For this reason, countries have never really deployed nuclear arms in a conflict. This has actually been a driving factor in why the major world/nuclear powers have never really directly fought each other since WW2.

This has prevented any conflicts like the Russo-Ukrainian War or the Israeli-Palestinian War from going global and starting a 3rd world war. And while this has resulted in dozens of "proxy" wars over influence in certain regions, those would have happened regardless if the atomic bombs had ever been invented.

Other Benefits

The strive to create sustainable and environmentally friendly energy has been exploded over the last couple decades, with nuclear energy right in the midst of it. Nuclear energy currently accounts for 10-11% of the world's energy output, and emits 4 times less CO2 than solar power, and 2 times less CO2 than hydroelectricity. This technology wouldn't have been as advanced, without WW2 and the arms race, and our earth would've been worse off because of it.

Another benefit  that goes relatively unnoticed, are the hundreds of movies and books that base large chunks of their storyline around nuclear weaponry and/or nuclear war. Just think about it, how would they have been able to make Oppenheimer without nukes?

Conclusion

Before I end the blog, I want to mention that the chances of a nuclear war any time in the near future are quite low, and often exaggerated by the media.

So to wrap it all up, nuclear weapons have prevented major global conflicts, saved millions of lives in WW2, paved the way for more environmentally friendly energy, and given us some great movies.

+1
Level 43
Jan 22, 2024
Sorry that the blog is pretty short (especially compared to Brainstorm's blog earlier today, but I ran out of things to say.
+1
Level 43
Jan 22, 2024
I'm also working on a blog going over the theories on why QM hates Belgium if anyone wants to collaborate.
+1
Level 59
Jan 22, 2024
Also makes it incredibly easy to destroy our selves. Nuclear wars neearly happened many times in the cold war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_close_calls

There are many times a single person has stopped nuclear war. We have made this reality.

(Also you can't take nuclear power into consideration, entirely diff)

+1
Level 59
Jan 22, 2024
Also proxy wars were directly escalated due to the proxy involvement. Developing nations were torn apart due to them.
+2
Level 59
Jan 22, 2024
Also nukes have been tested in Mississippi, space, underwater, underground, Australia, East/Japan Sea, Algeria, India subcont. And this still causes damage, as Authorities had promised the Bikini Atoll's residents that they would be able to return home after the nuclear tests. Both locations proved unsuitable to sustaining life, and the United States provides residents with on-going aid. Despite the promises made by authorities, these and further nuclear tests (Redwing in 1956 and Hardtack in 1958) rendered Bikini unfit for habitation, contaminating the soil and water, making subsistence farming and fishing too dangerous.
+1
Level 43
Jan 23, 2024
The part about testing nuclear weapons is a good point, that I don't have any comeback for, but as for the proxy wars, I would argue that those would have still been the same. The USA and the USSR still wanted influence and control, and nuclear weapons just prevented them from ever directly clashing.
+3
Level 63
Jan 22, 2024
I agree that the MAD policy has prevented another global war from breaking out, but are nukes really our best invention? What about chocolate?
+1
Level 63
Jan 23, 2024
And @Quizbyquiz I am barely working on a blog of the same idea, I'd love to collab.

Edit : I've shared mine with you but yours probably has more work done on it

+1
Level 43
Jan 23, 2024
I said ONE of ours, not our best, they aren't anywhere close to our best.
+1
Level 73
Jan 24, 2024
Yeah I think I was supposed to colab with that too but I never actually got around to doing that
+3
Level 34
Jan 22, 2024
Really interesting blog- From a world war two standpoint alone, I completely agree they made the right choice, it saved more lives than people realize,

In terms of the cold war I think they were a bit dangerous and there were a few close calls

+2
Level 43
Jan 23, 2024
True, but now we have more advanced technology, and less of a risk of accidentally blowing up the planet.
+3
Level 78
Jan 23, 2024
I agree with Nazgul on the WW2 scenario, I read somewhere (or may have heard it) that the bombings in Japan shortened the war by at least a couple of years and saved many lives that would have been lost in that time.

I think that our main problem is if a rogue state or terrorist group gets hold of a nuclear weapon. Especially any group that believes their death is a way to a better existence. Just one strategically aimed weapon could set of a reaction from world powers causing MAD.

+1
Level 63
Jan 24, 2024
Yes, nuclear weapons are good when they are in the hands of people who are at least half sane. And what if it ends up in the hands of a sick madman? We are not immune from this.

But I disagree with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was more like Truman playing with muscles. I don't think Japan was going to fight for a long time by that time, and besides, after the strikes, it fought for several more weeks.

+1
Level 63
Feb 4, 2024
Estimates for American casualties in an invasion of the Japanese mainland show between 150,000 - 1,000,000 dead so, yeah, I'd say it helped. And also 4 million Japanese dead.

As for 'fighting for several more weeks', the second bomb hit Japan on August 9, 1945, and Emporer Hirihoto declared a state of surrender on August 15, 1945. The 'several more weeks' was the time until the surrender was formally signed (September 2, 1945)

You have to get your facts straight on the Internet, or else someone will come along and *blam* correct you.