should the atomic bomb have been dropped why or why not? Explain answer with 2-3 paragraphs using evidence

Explanation:

About a week after V-J Day, I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."

Explanation:

The atomic bomb did more than just take away hundreds of thousands of lives. It ruined an entire city, broke apart families, hurt people who had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict between the U.S and Japan, and it was way too extreme. The United States of America was pretty much winning at this point in time, all they had to do was wait for Japan to surrender. When Japan did not surrender, dropping an atomic bomb and taking away hundreds of thousands of lives was most definitely not the right thing to do. After the first atomic bomb, Japan didn't even surrender, so many lives were lost and the U.S didn't get what they wanted, and so they dropped another one. Not only is this cruel, but it's not effective. Although Japan eventually surrendered, many lives were lost and Japan now has to try and build two cities out of nothing.

well we know that it was fought between america and the united kingdom based on that i assume people consider the second war of independence because brtiain and england (uk)   the uk is made up of england and i assume thats why it was considered that

rome's central location made it a center for trade through out the mediterain.

rome's lack of natural resouces encourgaged expansion and rome's geography priotected the city from invasion.