Chemistry

The United States of America was not justified to drop nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the end of the Second World War, very few people questioned President Harry Trumans decision to order nuclear attack on the two Japanese towns. The obvious reasoning was that the bombings helped bring the bloody and destructive war to a speedier conclusion, but little attention was paid to the over 100000 lives that were lost due to the use of a weapon so little was known about and the millions more who have or are still suffering from the consequences of the bombings (Snowden).

    Six decades later, revising historical perceptions most people would call common yields conclusions that there must have been better alternatives to end the confrontation without such a destructive attack. First of all, the US did not a warning to the Japanese to surrender before executing a nuclear attack (Snowden). Such a technology like nuclear language deserved to be treated with caution before it could be unleashed as terror to humanity. By executing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, the United States exhibited recklessness and proved to the world that it would not hesitate to use chemical weapons of mass destruction to exert its supremacy over the entire world.

    The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were devastatingly destructive. Both towns were destroyed and so many lives were lost instantly. The radiation from the explosions caused much more death and suffering for a prolonged period of time as it caused illnesses and genetic mutations (Snowden). Truman largely dropped the bombs for personal reasons. He was mainly revenging the destruction of Pearl Harbor and to account for the public funds that were used to create the bombs.


Part II
Recent upsurge of terrorist activities and an increasing number of failed and rogue states makes another nuclear attack very likely. Nuclear technology has proliferated and gotten in the wrong hands (Calabresi). Furthermore, greed has seen the illegal trade in radioactive materials flourish, involving those in charge of governmental and nuclear research facilities and resources.

    North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are making the nuclear threat more real as they continue enriching Uranium and Plutonium (Coughlin). Just last year, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon that specialists claimed had an equal or more power than the Hiroshima bomb. The scary bit is that the nation has continued to brave increased isolation from the international community to keep its military juggernaut rolling. Even though the Government of North Korea continually maintains that its nuclear arsenal is only meant to deter nuclear attacks on it, it is becoming clear that it could hit its enemies any time (Coughlin).

    The other serious threat is posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Irans situation is worsened by the fact that its administration is believed to be in touch with Islamic fundamentalists who have orchestrated a series of attacks in recent history, including September 11th, embassy bombings in East Africa and the London terror attacks (Calabresi). The level and spirit of Islamic militancy in the Middle East, backed by the acquisition of such a powerful weapon like the nuclear bomb, increases the possibility of nuclear attacks. Changing technologies and increased globalization have promoted the proliferation of nuclear material and technology, and bearing in mind the animosity between terrorist groups and nations against the US, the UK and Israel, these nations are most at risk of suffering a nuclear attack (Calabresi).