1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
nevsk [136]
2 years ago
13

The justices off the Supreme Court are:

History
1 answer:
Otrada [13]2 years ago
5 0
C=nominated by the chief justice
You might be interested in
What effect did radio have on the US in the 1920s?
Blizzard [7]

Answer:

they made baseball famous

Explanation:

Because people could communicate better

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Has US foreign policy been a positive or a negative for international diplomacy, since 1980?
Eddi Din [679]

Answer:

Positive,

Explanation:

Although the political views of Thomas Jefferson were very different from those of Washington, Jefferson agreed that isolation and neutrality were the most beneficial course for the United States.

8 0
2 years ago
Which crops were the main reason slavery became part of the colonial economy?
Dima020 [189]
I believe the answer is C Cotton and Tobacco
4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Was the united state correct 1945 when it became the first nation to use atomic weapons against japan to end world war 2 or was
Dominik [7]

Answer:

It was a morally wrong decision to drop the atomic bombs.

Explanation:

This is a heavily debated opinion-based question where you can go both ways. In my personal opinion, I personally argue that it was morally wrong for the US to use atomic weapons on Japan. Below is my reasoning.

1. Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender previous to the dropping of the atomic bombs, meaning that they were not a military necessity.

Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender under the single condition that their emperor would not be harmed. (This was mainly due to cultural reasons that made the emperor a particularly important figure) Instead of accepting, the United States instead decided to fight for unconditional surrender. While they did achieve that in the end, they ended up not harming the emperor anyway, meaning that they could have just accepted Japan's surrender in my personal opinion. Moreover, this desire disproves the argument that the decision to drop the bomb was a military necessity and many contribute Japan's surrender more so to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which meant Japan now had to fight a two-front war.

2. Atomic weapons are a form of indiscriminite killing.

Atomic weapons don't have eyes. They can't tell the difference between the military and civilians. Thousands of women and children were killed that had no involvement in the war. It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians, so why would atomic weapons be ethically acceptable? While the US did drop leaflets to warn civilians prior to the attacks, this act is not enough, and it cannot be expected for millions to flee thier homes.

3. The government may have been considering diplomatic reasons rather than solely ending the war.

If the US was really after a speedy end to the end of the war, there could have been many other ways to go about it. They could have continued to firebomb cities or accept conditional surrender. Some have argued that the diplomatic effects that came with it such as scaring the Soviets and proving US dominance were also in policymakers' minds. If the US had not been victorious in World War II, several important members of the government would have likely been tried as war criminals.

The Counter Argument:

Of course, there is also a qualified opposing view when it comes to this. It is perfectly valid to argue that the bomb was necessary for ending the war: as it is impossible to know the "what ifs" had history not happened the way it did. It is undeniable that the atomic bomb likely saved thousands of American lives if the war would have continued, and the war did ultimately come to an end a couple of days after the atomic bombs. There also is not enough evidence as to what exactly was the reason the Japanese unconditionally surrendered: it could have been Manchuria or the atomic bomb, both, or even other reasons entirely. Lastly, the general public did approve of the bombings at the time.

In recent years, the public have slowly become more critical of the bombings, although it remains a weighted moral debate.

Note: These are my personal views and this does explicitly represent the views of anyone else. Please let me know if you have any questions :)

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Who won the battle of Long Island
Bas_tet [7]
The British were the ones who won. Hope this helps!
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Canada and Mexico or similar to the United States because all three countries are described as
    15·2 answers
  • An electrician charges $50 to come to your house. He also charges $25 for each hour he spends at your house. The electrician cha
    8·2 answers
  • how would walls affect people who get isolated in a country and those people who get excluded from in entering the country
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following reasons explains why Hudson founded New York harbor?
    13·1 answer
  • Why did Malcom X. criticize MLK Jr. and the civil rights movement.
    13·1 answer
  • The arabs carried on extensive trade both by ship and by camel
    10·1 answer
  • What happened when the US occupied Japan after World War 2? I NEED THIS ASAP
    5·1 answer
  • Bill of rights what were the rejected amendments about?​
    8·1 answer
  • Ratified by the states in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted full citizenship rights to what group of people?
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following was NOT a condition of the treaty of Velasco
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!