In August of 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. President Truman agonized over the decision because it would mean massive amounts of life lost.

What arguments could be made for using atomic bombs to end the war?
What arguments could be made against using atomic weapons in the war?

FOR: These two bombs ended up making Japan surrender in World War 2, which meant many lives saved (which would have ended up being lost in the years of warfare that was prevented by the dropping of the two bombs). These measures had to be taken to end the brutal war.

AGAINST: This type of warfare is called assymetrical warfare. This is when one side has nuclear weapons (harmful to people, the environment, ect.), and the other one doesn't. This type of warfare isn't just, and we shouldn't have dropped two deadly weapons onto innocent civillians for the cause of this war.

Hide Feedback

Possible answers:

1.The loss of life would have been greater if a conventional invasion of Japan occurred.  Japan seemed unwilling to surrender even in the face of almost certain defeat without an overwhelming show of force.

2.It would be immoral to kill civilians who would inevitably be killed in such an attack. Using such a weapon would simply encourage other countries to develop such weapons—this would endanger the whole world.

Explanation:

the french revolution main idea was to give power to the people. the revolution was influenced by the enlightenment ideas, reasoning and skepticism pushed people to revolt against standards and norms in french society.

the problem was that the revolution caused political turmoil, and napoleon saw this as an opportunity and launched a coup d’état in november 1799. he became the first consul of france and later named french emperor.

some people see napoleon as a hero of the revolution and others see him as a traitor.

people see him as a traitor because he noticed the political turmoil and used this moment to rise to power. others see him as a hero of the revolution because he had some political and military achievements - in which he was committed to promoting the achievements of the french revolution - he had extensive public constructions, made a civil reform.

in a bigger picture, napoleon had some huge achievements in france which made him very important, but the fact that he seized power to himself makes him an undeniable traitor to the revolution since the main idea of it was to remove people from power and give power to the people.

your mom

now im just trying to get this to 20 characters hope it works hey it works hope it okay bye