# data[].attributes.body
No, but it was necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
Absolutely not. It was a disgusting war crime which killed hundreds of thousands and left survivors with inheritable disabilities for generations. It was also unnecessary as correspondence between Japanese officials show that the biggest factor in their surrender was the declaration of war by the Soviet Union. The primary reason it was used was to show that we had the power in order to intimidate the USSR.

# data[].attributes.body
It was not ethical to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Japan was completely unprepared, technologically and warning wise. This put them at a great disadvantage, losing hundreds of thousands of citizens within a week. America knew what they were doing and the power the bombs had to kill people, but still went along with it, making it unethical.

# data[].attributes.body
It was unethical but justifiable to drop the bomb on Hiroshima because it lead to the end of the war and the liberation of many countries from the Nazis. However, the US should not have dropped the second bomb because it was unnecessary. It's really an impossible question, though, because it requires choosing whose life is worth more. The US chose their troops and allies over Japanese citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
No, it was not ethical to drop the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki & Hiroshima. Even after considering both sides of the story, the bombs were not an ethical way of solving the situation. While Truman chose to drop the nuclear bombs because his other options were unlikely to make Japan surrender, it was cruel to knowingly kill innocent citizens using such a powerful weapon. The bomb had horrific effects on Hiroshima when it was dropped (92% of the city's structures were destroyed/damaged), but Truman still chose to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki. The immediate effects were already terrible, and the aftermath was even worse. People were harmed by the residual radiation, which killed them from the inside (it caused leukemia in many survivors). Therefore, while Truman's intent was to stop more lives from being lost by ending the war, the bomb itself was not ethical because it had severe short term and long term negative effects.

# data[].attributes.body
No, it was not ethical to drop the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time, because ethics weren't considered a big part of science/research at the time, many believed it was necessary in order to put a stop to the war. However, looking back dropping the bomb was unethical for multiple reasons. Firstly, this bomb caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In addition, the radioactive particles that remained after the bombings caused many effects such as cancer or death.

# data[].attributes.body
While I think the cause of ending the war was noble, and the Japanese military committed many atrocities in Asia, it was unethical to drop the bombs on civilian populations.

# data[].attributes.body
No because it caused the deaths of thousands of lives of innocent civilians. It also resulted in a large amount of radioactive activity in the areas.

# data[].attributes.body
No, because there could have been another way to get revenge on the Japanese instead of killing millions of people.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, we should continue nuclear power but not in the use of nuclear weapons. This is because nuclear power can save on money since gasoline is limited.

# data[].attributes.body
It was not ethical to drop either bomb. It killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It cannot even be explained as retaliation because the first bomb was plenty enough. It was disgraceful for the US to drop the bombs.

# data[].attributes.body
It was extremely unethical of the US to use nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. While it forced Japan to surrender in the war, it also killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

# data[].attributes.body
at the time they thought it was the only way to end the war but in hindsight we now know about the suffering it produced and how unethical it was

# data[].attributes.body
It was not ethical, but it was necessary. Mass destruction is rarely ethical, but for the greater good of ending the war, it was a necessary evil.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes

# data[].attributes.body
There were many other ways to end the war than mass destruction and causing huge areas of land to still be inhabitable to this day. They blew a retaliation attempt out of proportion and it should have never been done.

# data[].attributes.body
The benefits of nuclear power as well as its potential far outweigh any possible dangers of nuclear energy. While nuclear meltdowns are typically more dangerous, they occur far less often than drilling and mining accidents.

# data[].attributes.body
No, it is unethical to intentionally harm civilians during war.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, we should continue to invest in nuclear power. Nuclear energy is clean and produces very little greenhouse gas emissions, which would help in the climate change crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
We should continue to invest in nuclear power but we should have a standard model for nuclear power plants in order to make things easier as well as use more energy-efficient reactors to power the plants.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes. Barring extraordinary circumstances, it is unethical to kill noncombatants. However, the circumstances of WWII were extraordinary. In a timeline where the US shows restraint, the consequences very well might be worse. Therefore, the US was somewhat justified in ending the conflict as quickly as possible.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes

# data[].attributes.body
The US should ratify the UN treaty only if it is in agreement with other countries that posess nukes, so that the threat of nuclear annihalation isn't hanging above the worlds head forever. It should only be if all countries agree however, so that countries with nukes can't threaten everyone else with them.

# data[].attributes.body
No, because several people who lived on those islands were innocent people who didn't need to die and even though it basically won the war for the US, it was a bit overkill.

# data[].attributes.body
The only nuclear capabilities should be held by a coalition of the world governments, so that any possible insurgents can be responded to with force if necessary. This would prevent things like a new WWII Germany from developing into a worldwide threat.

# data[].attributes.body
No, while you could make a justification that it was in retaliation, it was still a horrific act that still affects people to this day due to either what they lost at that point or the area they live in today being practically inhabitable. It was a vile act that was completely unethical.

# data[].attributes.body
The US should ratify the treaty as long as every other country also ratified it . It should be an all or nothing type treaty. Us having no nuclear weapons would lead to us being vulnerable to nuclear weapons attacks from other countries. But, if every country signs it, then it would not be a big deal. Until they do, however, I do think the US should keep their weapons. Personally, I also believe we should have a president that doesn't threaten to use nuclear weapons at every possible chance and that it better at keeping peace so that there is no reason to use them.

# data[].attributes.body
We should not continue to invest Nuclear Power because it can increase pollution and expose radioactivity to the envrionment.

# data[].attributes.body
We should temporarily use nuclear power until a better alternative is identified that will also be able to contribute to reducing CO2 emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that with enough research into this field of study we can prevent its use in wars today and evolve it into a primary resource

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, but not as a solution to climate change. Medical technology and other advances are good but as an energy source it is not an aggressive enough strategy to effectively combat climate change, especially with how long it takes to build nuclear power plants.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, though we should be careful to only implement in a transitory fashion.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes because nuclear weapons are very destructive and have long-lasting effects. If there were to be a war involving nuclear weapons, large populations and areas of land could be wiped out.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes because nuclear power is cleaner for the environment and has lead to many notable scientific discoveries. Although, it should not be used as a weapon.

# data[].attributes.body
No, it was definitely not ethical to drop the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There were definitely other methods in which the situation could have been handled. Although we were seeking to end WWII, countless lives have been lost in Japan and it was completely unecessary to wipe out these cities. Yes, it solved the issue of the war, but it was ultimately not the best decision because these nuclear weapons had disastrous effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US should have handled the issue differently, or could have at least dropped one weapon, taking into consideration how radioactive and damaging these weapons are.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, we should continue to invest in nuclear power. While there are some cons to its use, such as the risk of nuclear weapons being developed and the difficulty of storing nuclear waste, there are also many pros, which include reduced carbon emissions from fossil fuel use. Additionally, new technology could help reduce the current negative aspects of using nuclear power. Using thorium reactors would make it difficult to create nuclear weapons, and it would reduce the amount of nuclear waste created.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree completely. While it was unethical, it was out of fear for what was going to happen in the future. Now we know it was the wrong choice, but they were in a difficult position.

# data[].attributes.body
No. This measure would be nonsensical because any country with the funds could simply restore their stock in secrecy. It would only serve to further illusions and obfuscate.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear energy is a renewable resource. It emits significantly less harmful chemicals into the environment. and those that it does can be store deep under ground. though nuclear energy alone cannot save us from climate change it is a step in the right direction.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, the US should ratify the UN treaty of nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous and could lead to the complete annihilation of human populations (we have already seen their effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). If the majority of the world's countries have stored nuclear weapons, a war could lead to mass destruction. Additionally, the US ratifying the treaty could potentially help persuade other countries to do the same.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes nuclear power does expose people and the environment to radioactivity but it is probably the cleanest energy source we have which in turn actually decrease pollution.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear power is very beneficial to society as a whole. While it can be harmful when misused or mistreated, the pros outweigh the cons. The main issue comes in needing to reduce the amount of nuclear power used for weaponry, but once again, the pros in medical in scientific fields are too beneficial to simply get rid of nuclear power entirely.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, the US should ratify this treaty. Nuclear weapons have already shown their potential in destroying the lives of countless people when used. The more people with access to weapons like these, the higher the probability that another tragedy will be caused by impulse or display of power.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree that we should not continue due to pollution, nuclear power uses far less fuel and as long as the fuel is properly disposed of, its environmental impact can be minimized. The only other options would be expensive and inefficient renewables, or fossil fuels which are much worse.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I think we should continue to invest in Nuclear Power, but only when necessary. It has been proven that the usage of nuclear power has many benefits such as the invention of new technologies, reducing CO2 emissions, and saving lives in some cases. However, the testing of Nuclear Weapons should be limited as it can cause damage to our environment and atmosphere. I believe investment in Nuclear Power should be used only to improve our society without any harmful side effects.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the drop of the nuclear bomb being unethical because there definitely could have been ways to stop the war instead of having to take extreme measures of killing millions.

# data[].attributes.body
Although I understand your reasoning, that is also the reasoning of every other country. If every country won't ratify it until all the other countries ratify it, then weapons and tensions will be built up until we could have another cold war because everybody wants to be protected from everybody else. If the US ratifies it, that might make other countries more open to ratifying it as well because they won't have to be prepared to defend against our nuclear weapons.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree! This event caused so much harm to innocent civilians and the environment. The war between the different countries should have been handled by political/military forces instead of killing hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting people.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree, this side of the story is not as often told about what good the bombs did for many prisoners of the axis forces and it so important and such a great point!

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with that; while it may not be the best long term resource it certainly is the best option right now.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that we should continue to invest in nuclear power, but we shouldn't focus on it exclusively. The many risks of nuclear power have been identified, such as producing harmful and radioactive waste and causing accidents. However, it is also important to look on the contrary. Nuclear research has led us to have increased treatments in the medical field with radiation. In terms of nuclear power, it's a  reliable energy source and limits the amount of greenhouse gases entering our atmosphere. When handled with properly and ethically, nuclear power can show to be an effective energy system, but we will have to take small steps toward heavily focusing on nuclear power.

# data[].attributes.body
That's an interesting perspective. I have never heard about it like that (unsurprisingly, because we want to feel justified in the destruction we caused), and it just goes to show how multi-faceted decisions are, especially concerning ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, the UN should ratify the treaty because nuclear weapons have caused nothing but harm since they were created, with the Hiroshima incident being a prime example. There is no ethical or logical reason to still have weapons in development.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree. This action should have been reserved as a last-resort. The Japanese military was not as powerful as the US or USSR so another military strategy could have been used to get Japan to surrender without harming innocent civilians.

# data[].attributes.body
However, if we sign the treaty and other countries don't sign it immediately and are not persuaded to, then we run into the issue of having no defense against the weapons. If we had a defense against the weapons that did not include nuclear weapons themselves, then I would 10/10 say the US should sign the treaty. Until then, no.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with your point about it being a necessary evil, but I still think it was unethical (which you said). It is true that the decision was thought out, and I agree that it was done with the right intentions (to force the Japanese to surrender before more American lives were lost). While the bombs themselves were extremely unethical, the other options were unrealistic and would also have caused lives to be lost (though likely in a much less horrific way and with less severe long-term effects). Still, I'd argue that the bombings were unethical solely because of their effects on buildings, people, and animals.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that we should invest in new innovative ways to use nuclear power, and focus more on the safe and positive uses, as well as limiting proliferation of the power to create a safer world.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the US should wait before they ratify the UN treaty of nuclear disarmament. While the effects of nuclear weapons are disastrous and can create harmful health effects when in contact with humans, we can not forsee the future. I am not saying that the US should always keep this mindset, it's just that we should always be careful and ready in the case of an event in the future targeted towards our country. However, I do hope that nuclear weapons will never be used again because of their harmful radioactive effects.

# data[].attributes.body
While I agree that it would be difficult to mandate, there wouldn´t be much harm in the treaty being implemented

# data[].attributes.body
This is so true and such a good point! There are positives, but also we need to look at the other side when the world is innovating.

# data[].attributes.body
While it is true that nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels, it is not a clean energy source, nor is it renewable. In order to combat the existential threat that is global climate change we would have to take much bolder and more aggressive climate action.

# data[].attributes.body
The US knew that Japan was unprepared for the attack and would be disadvantaged because of it, but that was the point. A war can only be won be disadvantaging your opponents; the costs of playing fair are too high to consider.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, the US needs to ratify the treaty so that other countries still holding on might do the same. Nuclear weapons are only good for the time of the war, and in all situations, when we look back on when they have been used, it ends up in mass casualties. There have been too many innocent lives lost in this terrible, unethical way.

# data[].attributes.body
I like that

# data[].attributes.body
This is so true! In history, there have been so many of these instances where nuclear weapons are used as a display of power when countless people's lives are lost.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with what you are saying but everyone being on the same playing field would be an unlikely reason for a country to sign this treaty because of the fear that some may continue to secretly store weapons.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear weapons are almost a necessary consequence of nuclear power.

# data[].attributes.body
The "all-or-nothingness" would be illusory. In reality, countries would secretly keep nuclear weapons out of paranoia. Nuclear disarmament would only serve to decrease transparency with respect to nuclear arms.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this. While nuclear power does have its obvious downsides, there have been many instances where it has been proven to be a beneficial resource.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, using nuclear power would end up decreasing pollution in the long run, as it could be used as a replacement for burning fossil fuels (which produce immense amounts of carbon emissions). Also, as investment and research continue, there could be new technology discovered to make nuclear power safer in terms of radioactivity.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, not that it matters because the UN has no way of enforcing any kind of penalty on the US for not doing so. Disarmament is a Security Council issue which the United States can veto.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree. Dropping bombs on citizens in general are unethical. Even with the counterargument that it was a necessary evil, why would Truman continue to drop the second bomb after seeing the aftermath of what happened in Hiroshima?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, but it kind of sucks that what you're saying is true. Disarmament would be the ideal solution, but I agree that it isn't realistic for all countries to be honest about it.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree, as having one model for reactors can ultmately make nuclear power much safer. There have shown to be issues with many different kinds of reactors making training and overall safety complicated. This can lead to harmful accidents and disasters, which is not desired. Having one specific type of reactor/model will help with safety issues in general.

# data[].attributes.body
These are great points. I agree that it was unethical, but I am still not convinced that it was justifiable. It may have been justifiable for Truman and the creators of the bombs, but it ultimately caused countless Japanese lives to be taken. The US could have identified other ways in which the situation of the end of the war could have been handled. Unfortunately, we can not say for sure if other plans could have ended the war, but the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains a tragedy today and should have had less disastrous effects.