They were desperate to end WW2 and Germany alredy surrendered and we wanted to quickly end the war and that seemed like the easiest way (but it killed mostly innocent civilians) VERY BAD
And I assume the multiple nightly firebombings with 1000 plane raids that killed roughly as many civilians per raid as one atomic bomb did, continuing for another year every night would have been less bad?!? Add to that that during the planned ground invasion 1,000,000 combat deaths on each side were anticipated and well over 10 times that civilian deaths as collateral damage would also have been less bad?!? It seems to me <200,000 atomic bomb deaths saved >>>>12,000,000 conventional deaths plus ~110,000,000 firebombing deaths over the year (assuming 3 raids per night). War is bad, but in the awful tradeoffs of real world war those 2 bomb were VERY GOOD. It is very possible that if the bombs had not been used the total population of Japan after the war would have been less than 1/10th that going into the war, with most of the deaths civilian.
US
the hydrogen bomb, is a nuclear bomb
A bomb can be either conventional or nuclear.
The terms "atomic bomb" and "nuclear bomb" are general terms and can pretty much be used interchangeably. That said, there isn't any difference between them, and one is not more powerful than the other in that light.
trinity was the code of the detonation of the nuclear deviceit was the first nuclear bomb in the world
US. End WW2.
The only nuclear weapons ever used in war were the US's MK-1 Uranium gun bomb and MK-3 Plutonium implosion bomb.
Thorium was not used in nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons have been used in war twice- both times in 1945, when the US bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nuclear. At the time it was called an atom bomb.
To make deadly Nuclear bomb
1945
To end WWII.
US
1945
US
no it did ont