Should the atomic bomb have been used on japan? why or why not? in 1 paragraph .

The usage of the atomic bomb on Japan by the United States is very debatable and can be seen from two different perspectives, both of which are right.The one perspective is that it should have been used. This perspective is based on the all the people that would have died in an open war with Japan, as well as the quick ending of the war.The other perspective is that is shouldn't have been used. This perspective is based on the fact that mostly innocent people died, and we are talking about tens of thousands of deaths. Also, the effects of the radiation from atomic bomb are long lasting, so the future generations have also had lot of negative effects from it. Both perspectives have good points, and it is hard to determine which one is more right than the other one.

-an amendment is proposed.

-two-thirds of congress must approve.

-thee-quarters of states must approve.

-the proposed amendment becomes law.

hope this

a true

explanation: