If we didn't drop the bomb, millions who would be dead. The two bombs dropped killed 226,000, but saved millions. These people were both Japanese and American.

I completely agree with what you just said. Even though the bombs killed some people, there was no other way for the US to win while still saving the lives of the soldiers on both sides.

The war was not cause by the USA's bombs. The war against the Japanese started when they bombed us at Pearl Harbor. If the US did not drop the bomb the war may have been years longer. The bombing was necessary because even though it killed some the bombs helped save many lives.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbor/history/wwii_timeline.html

The USA was right to drop the two atomic bombs because millions more people would have died in the war that would continue. Even though many say that these attacks killed innocent people, the death toll of Japans other attacks are much greater. For example, just two of Japan's many attacks(Pearl Harbor and the Philippines)killed about 160,000 people. Also, this does not include all of the people, both Americans and Japanese, that had lost there life in the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot compare to the damage done by one year of war. Also, if we had not dropped these two bombs then then the Japanese may not have ever surrendered. Keep in mind the fact that the USA had to drop not only one but two bombs to get Japan to finally give in. In conclusion, these bombs were necessary to save not only American, but also many Japanese lives.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbor/history/wwii_timeline.html

https://ww2db.com/battle.php?list=P

The chances of war however are very slim. Also, even if we were to have a war with North Korea they know that they would lose, so why have a war that you will lose? This does not make sense so North Korea would most likely not have war with us.

I agree with Meg because first off, neither of the countries want war. War is usually the last option in a situation like this. Also, if there was a war, we would win, and there is no reason in having a war you know that you will lose, making the chances of war even slimmer.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/06/shouldnt-worry-nuclear-war-north-korea-right-now/

The US should not be concerned because this has happened in the past before. The situation that we are in now is not very different from several other situations involving North Korea. Those previous situations were resolved without war and that should not be a concern. However, I do agree that we should still make sure North Korea does not attack because the issue could escalate very quickly. Even though this is a possibility, the chances of that happening are very slim, but we should not completely forget about the situation with North Korea.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/06/shouldnt-worry-nuclear-war-north-korea-right-now/

I agree, because the right to veto power can have some effects. For example, the 5 countries are not the most powerful in the world so they should not have the most power in the group. Also, taking away veto power could make the U.N. more equally fair and may be more welcoming to other countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/sep/23/un-security-council-failing-70-years

This is not always true because the countries with the 2 year position would also have an equal say, and that could change whether Russia and China were right or if the U.S., France and England were right. Also, this would make the system more fair because China and Russia still have the benefit of being a permanent member, so they would have a say every year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/sep/23/un-security-council-failing-70-years

The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council should not have veto power because some of the countries are not even the most powerful. For example, Germany and Japan are very powerful countries, but they cannot be eligible for the veto powers because they lost WWII. The UN Security Council should focus on the most powerful countries now and have them get a bigger say. Just because things have happened in the past with those countries, that should not impact what is happening now.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/sep/23/un-security-council-failing-70-years