One argument in favor of dropping atomic bombs on Japan was the belief that it would lead to a swift end to World War II, potentially saving countless lives. Proponents argued that an invasion of Japan would result in massive casualties for both Allied forces and Japanese civilians, while the bombings would force Japan to surrender unconditionally. Additionally, demonstrating the power of atomic weapons was seen as a way to establish a strong post-war position, particularly in relation to the Soviet Union.
it would prevent high casualties that would be caused by an invasion of mainland Japan
it would prevent high casualties that would be caused by an invasion of mainland Japan
it would prevent high casualties that would be caused by an invasion of mainland Japan.
it would prevent high casualties that would be caused by an invasion of mainland Japan.
it would prevent high casualties that would be caused by an invasion of mainland japan
Because they pissed us off at Pearl Harbor so we returned the favor
It ended the war and collapsed Japan's means to make war so most people favor the use of the atomic bomb in ww2
Which statement reflects an accurate argument in favor of a command economy
More Traditional
Because he leaned towards a view of war being necessary, and the american people just wanted peace and isolationism for the most part.
Macaulay's argument in favor of the Reform Bill of 1832 that were really convincing was his argument in favour of parliamentary reform. Thank you very much, but what exactly is his argument. I'm reading over the Bill and just cannot understand what his argument actually is.
More people were killed. Also due to new technology, the United States was able to use weapons such as atomic bombs in their favor.