One argument against the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that:Question 36Select one:a.it was fundamentally immoralb.it was done under just war doctrinec.it violated universal human rightsd.it violated the respect for local culturesClear my choice

The question is asking for one argument against the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The options given are:

a. it was fundamentally immoral b. it was done under just war doctrine c. it violated universal human rights d. it violated the respect for local cultures

Let's analyze each option:

a. it was fundamentally immoral - This is a valid argument as many people believe that the use of nuclear weapons, which caused massive loss of life and long-term suffering, was morally wrong.

b. it was done under just war doctrine - This is not an argument against the bombing. The just war doctrine is a set of criteria used to evaluate whether a war is morally justifiable. It doesn't argue against the use of nuclear weapons.

c. it violated universal human rights - This is also a valid argument. The bombings caused immense suffering and loss of life, which can be seen as a violation of the right to life, a universal human right.

d. it violated the respect for local cultures - While the bombings certainly had a devastating impact on local cultures, this is not typically one of the main arguments used against the bombings.

So, the arguments against the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki among the options given are: it was fundamentally immoral and it violated universal human rights.