Some countries think small atomic bombs with narrower effects should be developed to maintain the peace, but will it be ethical to maintain the world peace with new gadgets that can kill more people? Do we need more violence to avoid the actual violence?
The history of atomic bomb started in 1945 when the US developed the first atomic bomb and dropped it in Hiroshima (Little Boy). Three days later, another bomb for Nagasaki (Fat Man) was dropped, which caused disastrous events later on. The effects are very tragic as, in the end, 132,000 people died directly because of the bomb and more than millions died in the future because of radiation, cancer, genetic diseases and many other unfortunate problems.
The question about atomic bombs always should be that “Is it worth it?”. For me the answer is both of them because when we think about the effects of atomic bombs, yes. They are really tragic like thousands of people directly die because of explosion and more than million will die because of radiation effects like cancer, genetic diseases, mutated plants, radiation poisoning and many more… We have seen these effects on Hiroshima and also in Nagasaki. After these two disasters, everyone in the world said that we should avoid using these monsters! But after all when we look the scenario, it is not like that. Nearly every country who has a little bit of power in leading the world have atomic bombs. Aren’t they monsters?
On the other hand, atomic bombs are very useful in some ways. For example, those countries with atomic bomb power can’t be bullied and they maintain their power. Atomic bombs are very practical for intimidating countries and people who are seen as threats for the world peace. Therefore, the world peace is sustained with the help of those atomic bombs because they make other countries scared, which leads to a more peaceful environment.
So in a way, the world peace is achieved thanks to the existence of some destructive weapons. Isn’t that ironic?