Question

I am doing a research paper on "Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?" Which side should I pick? Which side is easier to argue?

Answer 1

Perhaps you can S.W.O.T. it. For instance.
Strengths: The war in the Pacific had been very costly for both sides and non-combatants. Demonstration of overwhelming force could end the war with less loss of life all around.

Weakness: The majority of casualities would be civilian. There were only two bombs in striking distance at the time so if the bombings did not work all the deaths would have been for naught.

Opportunities: The US and its trusted allies would be the only powers with a demonstrated nuclear strike capability giving them a strong voice in post war international politics.

Threats: Once the viability of nuclear weapons was demonstrated the race would be on for other nations to get them opening the US to the threat of nuclear annihilation.

An analysis like that where you think of the pros and cons, benefits and cost of the bombing might help you focus your thoughts and knowledge of the decision. You can review your book and notes for more ideas.