The reason then is very similar to post-9/11. America was hit at Pearl Harbor, on our "home" soil - though off-mainland. Americans were terrified Japanese living in the US or Japanese-Americans would aid and abet Japanese living in Japan, letting another attack happen on US soil. Bush reacted in a similar way toward "terrorists" after 9/11---"put them all" at Guatanamo Bay without due process because their countrymen had attacked the US on home soil.
The cost of invading Japan was extrapolated from the previous invasions of Japanese held islands. A conservative estimate was that over a million US servicemen would be casualties and that there would be a similar rate among Japanese civilians, not to mention the Japanese military. The shock value of the A-bomb and the loss of several hundred thousands probably saved several million lives.
gosh people learn your so dumb
I know exactly what you are talking about. It depends. The United States used two nuclear bombs on Japan to end the Second World War, causing widespread devastation, the death of thousands of civilians, and the surrender of Japan. This is a matter of opinion. I believe, earnestly, that the actions of the United States here were completely justified. Don't get me wrong. I think it's terrible that human beings have to go through such horrors as this. But I have read too many accounts of American prisoners of the Japanese, too many stories of the Death March and other Japanese cruelty (both sides committed atrocities, but the USA tended to treat POWs much better. In the final days of the European war, Germans flocked to the American lines and fled from the Russians). The war needed to end as soon as possible, and an attack on the Japanese homeland (which was defended by fanatic Japanese, civilians and soldiers alike) was out of the question for a nation that had a nuclear weapon. Most historians will probably agree that to try to take the Japanese homeland using conventional methods would have extended the war by months and years, caused much more bloodshed than the bomb did (the bomb just demoralized them) and used thousands and millions of tons of material more. I honestly believe that the USA was justified, though wars should never even have to start....
No, all that defeating the confederacy did was rid the U.S. of slaves. (Mostly)
Justify America's neutrality His audience held many different opinions about the war.
Turner said that colonial expansion served the purpose that the frontier had for earlier Americans
Turner said that colonial expansion served the purpose that the frontier had for earlier Americans.
All of the above
slavery was mentioned in The Bible
slavery was mentioned in The Bible
it was critical for the south's agricultural economy.
Slavery was mentioned in the bible.
One argument used to justify slavery was the belief in the superiority of certain races over others. This belief was often supported by pseudo-scientific theories that claimed that certain races were naturally suited for slavery. Additionally, economic interests and the need for cheap labor were also used to justify the practice of slavery.
The argument used to justify slavery was that it was necessary for the economy and plantation owners relied on slave labor. This argument also served to question the fairness of northerners who benefitted from the goods produced by slave labor in the South, leading to debates about complicity in the institution of slavery.
One argument used to justify slavery was the belief in white superiority and the idea that African people were inferior and needed guidance and discipline from their white masters. This justification was based on racist ideologies that dehumanized and justified the exploitation of enslaved individuals.
Du the constatution stupid
justify, confirm, explain, condone, support, sustain