What were the arguments against the use of atomic bombs during WWII?? Please provide at least 3 reasons why they didn't support the use of atomic bombs, please a paragraph including detail/explanation with the reasons. I will mark brainliest for the best answer I would really appreciate it!!

follow me and 5 stars and love be the best comment

Explanation:        Others have argued against the use of the bombs, with evidence such as: it was not needed, it was inhumane and it led to the modern atomic age and threat of nuclear war. Still others argue that perhaps the first bomb used against Hiroshima was justified but that the second used against Nagasaki was not.                                                  

[number 1 argument ]

The origins of the Manhattan Project go back to 1939, when Hungarian-born physicist Leo Szilard, who had moved to the U.S. in 1938 to conduct research at Columbia University, became convinced of the feasibility of using nuclear chain reactions to create new, powerful bombs. German scientists had just conducted a successful nuclear fission experiment, and based on those results, Szilard was able to demonstrate that uranium was capable of producing a nuclear chain reaction.  Szilard noted that Germany had stopped the exportation of uranium from Czechoslovakian mines which they had taken over in 1938.

number 2 argument

On September 39, 1938, the League of Nations, “under the recognized principles of international law,” issued a unanimous resolution outlawing the intentional bombing of civilian populations, with special emphasis against bombing military objectives from the air.  The League warned, “Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.”  Significantly, the resolution also reaffirmed that “the use of chemical or bacterial methods in the conduct of war is contrary to international law.”  In other words, a special category of illegal weapons had been recognized, a category today called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

number 3 argument

Opponents of President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb argue that racism played an important role in the decision; that had the bomb been ready in time it never would have been used against Germany. All of America’s enemies were stereotyped and caricatured in home front propaganda, but there was a clear difference in the nature of that propaganda.  Although there were crude references to Germans as “krauts,” and Italians as “Tonies” or “spaghettis,” the vast majority of ridicule was directed at their political leadership.  Hitler, Nazis, and Italy’s Mussolini were routinely caricatured, but the German and Italian people weren’t.

option d is correct. corroborated sources of historical evidence   is necessary to validate a claim about an event in history.

historians tend to use written sources, but audio and visual materials as well as artifacts are important objects that supply information to modern historians.

historical sources are usually divided into two categories: primary and secondary sources. depending on the historian's intent, some sources shift their designation. determining what type of sources toimplement, and the level of credibility and reliability of those sources, is a significant step in critical thinking for the historian.

explanation:

explanation:

omgggggg i go to k12 too : d