The first bomb, dropped on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, resulted in a death toll of around 135,000. The second, which hit Nagasaki on 9 August, killed at least 50,000 people – according to some estimates, as many as 74,000 died.<span>It was certainly a reasonable view for the USA to take, since they had suffered the loss of more than 418,000 lives, both military and civilian. To the top rank of the US military the 135,000 death toll was worth it to prevent the “many thousands of American troops [that] would be killed in invading Japan” – a view attributed to the president himself.</span><span>the US wasn’t justified. Even secretary of war Henry Lewis Stimson was not sure the bombs were needed to reduce the need of an invasion: “Japan had no allies; its navy was almost destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.”</span><span>The atom bombs achieved their desired effects by </span>causing maximum devastation<span>. Just six days after the Nagasaki bombing, the Emperor’s Gyokuon-hōsō speech was broadcast to the nation, detailing the Japanese surrender. The devastation caused by the bombs sped up the Japanese surrender, which was the best solution for all parties.</span>
The Soviets were proclaiming themselves as communist, though the reality was not as the communism truly says a state should be run. If the Soviets practiced the textbook communism, then everyone in the society would have been equal. Everyone was going to earn the same amount of money and get the same things necessary for life without any problem. The economy would have been self-sustaining and that was going to be supported by excellent planning. There were not going to be social classes, but everyone would have been in the same class. The Soviets did pretty much everything wrong with those ideas, and in all fairness the human nature just doesn't allow for something like that to exist.
Mikhail Gorbachev was hated by the hardline communist. The main reason for that was that he was trying to make the country slightly more liberal, more open to the world and to modernization. That was seen as treason of the communist ideology by the hardline communist so they were against all of that.
The US businesses were upset by Spanish reactions to the Cuban Revolution during the late 1800s was because the US businesses were afraid that they would lose the money they had invested. I hope that this is the answer you were looking for and it has come to your help.
No, the freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in a democracy along with the freedom of press. It allows several voices to rise and be heard. But it does not means that you can say whatever you want whenever you want.
You can find the foundations of the freedom of speech in the first amendment where it says:
<em>"Amendment I
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>Congress </em><em>shall make no law </em><em>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or </em><em>abridging the freedom of speech</em><em>, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" </em>
But there are exceptions to the rule. You can´t say whatever you want as the supreme court have showed in several cases. From this we can extract some categories where the first amendment doesn´t work:
- Incitement: When its directed to inciting or producing inminent lawless action.
- False statements of facts: there are some types of this unprotected according to the supreme court: those said with <em>"sufficiently culpable mental state" </em>can be subject of criminal or civil liability. Secondly libel and slander and finally negligent statements or facts can be subject of civil liability.
As a conclusion we can say that the freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a healthy democracy but we must take care of it. We can´t say whatever we want, well actually we can but you have to be responsible of your acts.
