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 is true about the Kellogg Briand pact of 1928
DedPeter [7]
Here are two truths about the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
1.  It wanted to outlaw war, so that nothing like The Great War would ever happen again.
2.  It failed to have any real impact in keeping nations from pursuing war, and we now call "The Great War" World War I, because it was followed by World War II.

French Minister of Foreign Affairs Aristide Briand and US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg were key proponents of the plan, which was signed by various dignitaries at the White House in 1928.  The pact stated that the signing nations were "persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made," and so the signers of the treaty declared their opposition to war.  By their example they hoped to encourage other nations of the world to join them in the same commitment.   

The pact had little effect.
8 0
3 years ago
The graph above depicts that
labwork [276]

Answer:

German paper marks rapidly lost value between 1918 and 1923

Explanation:

Between the period 1918 ans 1923, the German economy crumbled rapidly and it had enormous inflation, resulting in large scale poverty in the country. This can be seen very well from the presented graph, as at 1918 one paper Mark was almost equivalent to one gold Mark. Then as the years pass by the paper Mark starts to lose on value, and by 1921 it is almost 1,000 paper Marks that were the equivalent of one golden Mark. From 1922 we have a sharp loss of value of the paper Mark continuing in the next 1923, with the end result being one billion paper Marks to be equivalent to one gold Mark.

6 0
3 years ago
How did the United State's response during the early years of World War 2 evolve?
enyata [817]
First, they wanted to stay out, then they started to help England and France, and finally when Japan attacked they totally got involved.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
During the Victorian Age, the upper class became very wealthy in part by exploiting the lower classes. For America to become a g
zhenek [66]
Um sorry i really dont know this. wierd I usally know these answer's. PS if i get the answer ill let you know.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
3
shutvik [7]

First and Last answer because when the Europeans went to Africa they were looking for new resources to improve theres and use those goods within trade to other countries and as a bonus they converted many African tribes to Christianity.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Women who served in the WASP during World War II were
    7·2 answers
  • Why did Roger William build a settlement in Providence?
    13·1 answer
  • Define commercial capitalism.
    7·1 answer
  • US Supreme Court Justices serve how many
    8·1 answer
  • After World War I, the federal government took this stance in regard to veterans with disabilities.
    12·2 answers
  • Scientists are studying the effects of climate change on the Baltic Sea. Some scientists predict that if current trends continue
    14·1 answer
  • Why do some ppl consider the way media cover candidates for public office bad for democracy.
    8·1 answer
  • How did Tecumseh hope to stop white settlers from taking Native American land?
    7·1 answer
  • Anyone zooommm :)...........
    11·1 answer
  • What prompted the eastern government to build the Berlin wall?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!