0
What do many people still argue about the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in 1945?
The attacks ended the war, but killed many civilians and alarmed the Soviet Union. ~ apex
What else can I help you with?
Why do people still argue about the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan?
Some say that Truman wanted to send a message to the Soviet Union - Apex
Why do many people still argue about the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in 194?
some say that truman wanted to send a message to the soviet union
What country does bonsai originate from?
The general opinion is that it originated in Japan although some people argue it started in China then Japan.
Was the use of the atomic bomb justifiable at the time it was dropped in world war 2?
Some people think it was, others argue that it was not.
What occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in 1945?
That's the easiest question ever... Of course the Atomic bombs were dropped, ending the war with Japan. But some argue the second bomb wasn't needed. America didn't give Japan a chance to surrender after the first bomb, because the second was dropped within days of the first.
How did historians judge Truman's this decision?
Historians have offered varied interpretations of President Truman's decision to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Some argue it was a necessary action to swiftly end World War II and save lives by avoiding a costly invasion of Japan. Others criticize it as an unnecessary display of power that caused immense civilian suffering and set a troubling precedent for nuclear warfare. Overall, the decision remains a contentious topic, reflecting broader debates about military ethics and the nature of wartime leadership.
Who argue against the use of the atomic bombs state that?
Millions will die and the earth will be destroyed.
According to J. Samuel Walker what was the consensus among scholars regarding the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan?
According to J. Samuel Walker, the consensus among scholars is that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was not necessary to secure a swift end to World War II. Many historians argue that Japan was already on the verge of surrender and that other factors, such as the Soviet Union's entry into the war against Japan, would have led to Japan's capitulation without the use of atomic weapons. Walker emphasizes the ongoing debate about the moral implications and strategic decisions surrounding the bombings. Overall, there is a growing recognition that the bomb's use was more about demonstrating power than achieving military necessity.
Those who argue against the use of the atomic bombs state that?
Millions will die and the earth will be destroyed.
Was the atomic bombing of hiroshima unjustified?
Questions like these come down to personal opinion. One might argue that it was a need, where one might argue it was a greed. There is no "correct" answer.
Why America should't have used the atomic bombs?
It is certainly possible to argue that the use of atomic bombs against Japan killed indiscriminately, that it was cruel, that it caused hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer well after the war was over, and that it sets a dangerous precedent for the use of nuclear weapons in the future. However, I also know of excellent arguments in support of the atomic bombing of Japan. I am not going to mention all of them, but remember before you condemn America, that Japan was at war with America by its own choice. America did not even want to get involved in WW II, but was left no choice after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. You reap what you sow.
Why does your boyfriend argue with you then with the people who cause us problems?
There are two interpretations of your question: 1. Why does my boyfriend argue with me first and then argue with the people who cause us problems? 2. Why does my boyfriend argue with me rather than with the people who cause us problems? Which is it?
