Answer :
The entire question mentions Atomic weapons.
1) (a) the loss of life would have been greater if the conventional invasion of Japan occurred. Japan seemed unwilling to surrender even in the face of almost certain defeat without an overwhelming show of force.
(b) it would be immortal to kill civilians who would inevitably be killed in such an attack.
using such a weapon would simply encourage other countries to develop such weapons - this would endanger the whole world
2)The Marshall Plans, the financial plan worked better for containment.
3) (a) The Japanese have been unrelenting and incredibly cruel during the war.
(b) They have starved, beaten, and executed American prisoners of war.
(c) The Japanese disobeyed the International laws of warfare.
(d) Japanese were not afraid of the attack, they thought the US was bluffing.
4) Opponents contend, among other arguments, that the bombings were unnecessary to win the war or that they constituted a war crime or genocide. It was used to shorten the agony of the war.
5) On October 29, 1929, the United States stock market crashed in an event known as Black Tuesday.
6) Lend-Lease Act of March 1941 was the wartime aid program, which allowed the US to sell, lend or give war materials to nations the US administration wanted to support.
7)Supporters of the bombings generally believe that they prevented an invasion of the Japanese mainland, saving more lives than they took by doing so.
8) Some have argued in favor of the use of the bombs for a range of reasons, including it ended the war, it saved the lives of millions, and it was necessary for the emerging Cold War with the Soviet Union.
To know more about Atomic weapons,
brainly.com/question/27356421
#SPJ4