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
Mkey [24]
3 years ago
15

How much fault or guilt should the United States have about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

History
1 answer:
Vesnalui [34]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, killing tens of thousands of people – many instantly, others from the effects of radiation. Death estimates range from 66,000 to 150,000.

Declining Support in Both the U.S. and Japan for America's Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This first use of a nuclear weapon by any nation has long divided Americans and Japanese. Americans have consistently approved of this attack and have said it was justified. The Japanese have not. But opinions are changing: Americans are less and less supportive of their use of atomic weapons, and the Japanese are more and more opposed.

In 1945, a Gallup poll immediately after the bombing found that 85% of Americans approved of using the new atomic weapon on Japanese cities. In 1991, according to a Detroit Free Press survey conducted in both Japan and the U.S., 63% of Americans said the atomic bomb attacks on Japan were a justified means of ending the war, while only 29% thought the action was unjustified. At the same time, only 29% of Japanese said the bombing was justified, while 64% thought it was unwarranted.

But a 2015 Pew Research Center survey finds that the share of Americans who believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified is now 56%, with 34% saying it was not. In Japan, only 14% say the bombing was justified, versus 79% who say it was not.

Not surprisingly, there is a large generation gap among Americans in attitudes toward the bombings of Hiroshima. Seven-in-ten Americans ages 65 and older say the use of atomic weapons was justified, but only 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree. There is a similar partisan divide: 74% of Republicans but only 52% of Democrats see the use of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II as warranted.

In the years since WWII, two issues have fueled a debate over America’s use of nuclear weapons against Japan: Did Washington have an alternative to the course it pursued – the bombing of Hiroshima followed by dropping a second atomic weapon on Nagasaki on Aug. 9 – and should the U.S. now apologize for these actions?

70 Years Ago, Most Americans Said They Would Have Used Atomic Bomb

In September 1945, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago asked Americans what they would have done if they had been the one to decide whether or not to use the atomic bomb against Japan. At the time, a plurality of Americans supported the course chosen by the Truman administration: 44% said they would have bombed one city at a time, and another 23% would have wiped out cities in general – in other words, two-thirds would have bombed some urban area. Just 26% would have dropped the bomb on locations that had no people. And only 4% would not have used the bomb.

By 1995, 50 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, support for an alternative to the bombing had grown. Gallup asked Americans whether, had the decision been left up to them, they would have ordered the bombs to be dropped, or tried some other way to force the Japanese to surrender. Half the respondents said they would have tried some other way, while 44% still backed using nuclear weapons.

But this decline in American support for the use of atomic bombs against Japanese cities did not mean Americans thought they had to apologize for having done so. In that same Gallup survey, 73% said the U.S. should not formally apologize to Japan for the atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only 20% supported an official apology.

You might be interested in
Which description best describes the caste system in India?
Trava [24]

The Indian class system was a very important part of life. It defined you in most ways, people were born into their castes and could not move up, but they could move down. It is one of the most significant and remembered because it is something that we don't really understand in western civilization.

I hope that helps!

5 0
3 years ago
Read the following passage.
Scrat [10]

Answer: Franklin D. Roosevelt

Explanation:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the serving president during the conflict of World War 2. He planned D-Day, along with other leaders like Winston Churchill. On June 6, 1945, the Allies attacked the German-controlled French area of Normandy, which marked D-Day.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Benefits and challenges that the Clergy class faced
nasty-shy [4]

Answer:

Pros :

You had the possibility to help people rather directly as there were more little towns.

People were much more receptive to your preaches. You had a rather large freedom of speech especially if you were a bishop. (This is not in middle ages but the priest that lead Louis XIV burial mass said in his preach “Only God is great !” (Implicitly saying that the king was a standart man that was confronted to the same necessity than other people).

You had access to a good education (and to some boos, what was rather scarce before the XVIth century) hence, you were one of the few litterate persons allowing you to teach people how to read and write. You could have an intellectual influence and a social influence by teaching the local lord’s children how to read and sometimes give political pieces of advice to the local lord.

You could yourself be a local lord as bishop / head of an abbey.

You could be the head of a local charity (origin of hospitals).

In France you didn’t pay taxes. On the contrary, you received one tenth of peasants’ crops.

If you were an eminent bishop / cardinal, or if you were the Pope you could have tremendous spiritual and political power.

You could get married while being a catholic priest (before the XIIth century, before 1123 precisely).

Cons :

You could be obliged to condemn people because they didn’t believe in God - help the Inquisition.

You had to help / discuss with people that were sentenced to death what should have been very difficult on a psychological point of view.

You couldn’t get married after the XIIth century (after 1123).

You could be seen with envy considering your privileges.

Explanation:

found it online

8 0
2 years ago
A nation with an oligarchy form of government has
Andreas93 [3]

A nation with an oligarchy form of government has

A.)elections so the people can vote on each government decision

B.)one hereditary executive who remains in office for life

C.)many elected officials to represent different groups of people

D.)few leaders who typically have similar views on government

the correct answer is C.)

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Did the bible say the earth was the center of the universe
Pavlova-9 [17]
Yes and that the sun revolved around it
4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Generalizations should be revised because they
    12·2 answers
  • Betty friedans the feminine mystique championed womens right to work in the early 1960s. for many black feminists, friedans book
    8·1 answer
  • B) ¿Durante cuántas décadas ha tenido vigencia la Constitución<br> de 1917?
    14·1 answer
  • In the early 1800s, farmers did not use metal plows because they believed the metal would poison the soil.
    13·1 answer
  • A major cause of the Russian Revolution of 1917 was the Question 21 options: A. defeat of Germany in the Russian campaign
    10·2 answers
  • New england coommercial wealth based on oversea shipment of
    15·1 answer
  • What is the main goal of the Europian Union
    11·2 answers
  • During Alexander's reign,
    15·2 answers
  • PLEAASEEEE HELP THESE ARE MY LAST SET OF POINTS! How would someone exposed only to the reconciliationist view of Reconstruction
    10·1 answer
  • Guerras que marcaram o século XX. Identifica países participantes, as suas causas e consequências?
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!