Get help from the best in academic writing.

Wk 5 – The Role of Poster Sessions in Scholarly Engagement [due saturday ] Assignment Content

Locate and review information on developing a poster for a conference poster session. Write a 350-word response addressing the following questions: How might you use a poster session to engage with the scholarly community? What conferences associated with your research centers might have a future call for posters? What research information should be included on a conference poster? Submit your assignment.  
What do you think were the key, general lessons in Milligram’s study The lessons learned from Milligram’s experiment can be listed as follows: most people abide by the laws or rules when they are forced by circumstances; people obey instructions because they are afraid of the repercussions of not being obedient to their superiors, and lastly, obedience is said to be a reaction by someone, basically working collaboratively with those in power even if abiding by the norms is contrary to a person’s conscience (Milgram, 1974). Zimbardo’s study The lessons that can be learned from the experiment are as follows; human beings can be turned into becoming sadists by evil minds; obedience is a prerogative of the subject; the abuse of human rights can result in rebellion; lifelong harassment in prison cells is dehumanizing and humiliating to the prisoners and can lead to psychological and emotional harm of the inmates; and finally, prison cells can lead to the mental torture of both the inmates and even the prison wardens. This is true with respect to the kind of treatment the guards accord their prisoners when they are fatigued or bored at night (Zimbardo et al. 2000). What were your general reactions to studies that you read about? That is, did you find them interesting, fascinating, not applicable? General reactions to the studies. In my opinion, the studies are fascinating. They are interested in the sense that the subjects of experiments volunteered to participate in the research, but at the end of the day, they appear to be tormented by what was happening. In Zimbardo’s study, the ‘prisoners’ appear to have forgotten that it is a mere psychological experiment and are said to believe it is a real prison. A good example is prisoner # 8612, who endured psychological harm and started crying, claiming he was ill and demanded to be freed from prison. He even went further to curse the officials when he was denied a release order on the account that he was pretending. This makes him behave madly until finally he is released. It is also interesting to see how people can just become sadists and start abusing others the way the prison guards were humiliating the prisoners. In short, both studies appear interesting, but to some extent, they can be frightening to the subjects of the experiments. For example, in Milligram’s study, some teachers appeared reluctant to proceed with the study. Ethically, a study shouldn’t harm human beings psychologically. In Milgram study, why did the participants (“teachers”) continue to shock the “learner”? Try to identify (i.e., in bullet points) as many potential factors that contributed to his actions The reasons for the teachers obeying the command can be varied. The following are the reasons why the teachers continued to shock the learner; They were obliged to be obedient to the experimenter -cooperating in the study. They thought the learner was foolish, and therefore, he needed to be shocked. They believed that it was not their fault even if something terrible happened to the learner, as the blame was to be directed to the experimenter who directed it. They were afraid to confront those in authority, though; they knew it was against their wish to inflict pain on the learner bearing in mind the magnitude of the pain. They feared ridicule from their fellow colleagues for failing to shock learners. They believed it was going to enhancing the learning ability of the learners. In Milgram study, if you were assigned a role of a teacher, what would you do? In Milgram’s study, if you were assigned the role of a teacher, I would challenge the nature of the punishments to the learners. This kind of pain can even impair the learner. Also, ethically, any research conducted on humans should not inflict any physical, emotional, or psychological harm to them. In milligram’s experiment, it appears the subjects of the experiment are being injured. In other words, I would immediately withdraw from participating in the study, having learned my roles as a teacher. Furthermore, it can continue to torture somebody when you imagine performing such a dreadful act. For purposes of safeguarding your job and sometimes, as the rules stipulate, I am obliged to obey. In a nutshell, I would obey the rules and inflict shock. In Zimbardo study, if you were a guard, what kind of guard would you become? If you were a prisoner, what kind of a prisoner would you become? In Zimbardo’s study, if I were a guard, I would fall in the first category of guards -who are tough and fair who abide by the prison rules. This can help to eradicate animosity among the prisoners by not showing favouritism. On the other hand, if we’re a prisoner, I would become a good prisoner, obeying everything the guards expect me to be doing as an inmate. This can save me the wrath of the brutality of the inhumane guards and any other form of harassment that comes with failure to obey the commands. It can also help me to get favours from the guards who can afford privileges. Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More In Zimbardo study, why did some guards become so strict? In Zimbardo’s study, some guards became so strict because of the wayward behavior of the prisoners on the second day when a rebellion broke out. The inmates’ deeds of refusing to tie stocking caps, removal of their ID, and confining themselves in jail by blocking the entrance using beds angered guards. The wardens were so much annoyed and disturbed that they started to humiliate prisoners (Zimbardo et al. 2000). References Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: The FreePre ss. Web. Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C.,

Private Security versus Public Policing Comparisson Analysis

Private Security versus Public Policing Comparisson Analysis.

As a member of the local law enforcement agency you have been selected to present at a town hall meeting. The town hall meeting takes place in a community of 220,000 residents. The community has a small college, large teaching hospital, and three large public high schools. The community has requested more information on the merits of both private security and public policing.Create a 12- to 14-slide Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation that compares the roles, functions, and responsibilities of public policing versus private security. Your presentation must include extensive speaker notes. Be sure to address the following:How are public policing and private security similar? How are they different?How does leadership differ between the two areas? Explain the role of each leader.What is the relationship of each—public policing and private security—within the criminal justice system?What are the essential policies for each role in enhancing homeland security?Include images, charts, and multimedia to explain the points of your presentation.include a title slide,footnotes,reference slide
Private Security versus Public Policing Comparisson Analysis

Emory HR practices Result in Happy Employees & Customers Article DiscussionDiscussion

essay help online free Emory HR practices Result in Happy Employees & Customers Article DiscussionDiscussion.

please do not exceed 500 words 
make it simple and clear answers 
Part I: Traditionally, human resource management practices were developed and administered by the company’s human resource department. Some companies are abandoning or don’t have HR departments. Why is this occurring? Is it a good idea for companies not to have an HR department or HR professionals? Explain your position.
Part II: Read the Exercising Strategy mini case titled “Publix: HR Practices Result in Happy Employees & Customers” which can be found at the end of Ch. 1 and on the attached handout. After reading it, respond to the three discussion questions at the end of the case:
1) Which of Publix’s HR practices do you think are most important for its success? Why?
2) Could promotion from within have disadvantages for Publix? Explain why?
3) Do Publix’s HR practices give it an advantage over its competitors? Why or why not?
Emory HR practices Result in Happy Employees & Customers Article DiscussionDiscussion

US National Security and Foreign Policy Research Paper

John Quincy notes in one of his famous excerpts that “America does not go abroad in terms of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to Freedom and independence of all” (Horowitz 20). Such a statement leaves a lot to be desired in the minds of Americans and the world at large. There are mixed public reactions on the 21st Century U.S foreign policy which may not be purely classified into any singly known international relations theory. Besides, a sharp contrast between the Obama administration and that of his predecessor, George W. Bush is evident when the two administrations are compared. Hence, the hot pursuit to adopt a comprehensive realist/liberalist international relations theory is eminent and cannot be ignored either. The contemporary U.S foreign policy on National Security undoubtedly appears to strike a balance between realism and liberalism. A critical and more pragmatic argument can be directed towards Obama’s attempt to move the U.S troops out of Iraq. He has equally been emphatic on the need to uphold the dignity of international organizations. Varied criticisms have followed with some perceiving it as a replica of Bush administration while others feeling that this is in favor of U.S capitalistic ideology. To be precise however, proponents of this power strategy may see it as the most adept means of harmonizing foreign policy in a world which is politically at quagmire. This paper contrasts classic realism and liberalism with U.S foreign policy on National Security and whether the implications that can be drawn from the John Quincy statement are consistent with the demands of U.S National Security in the 21st century. The global political ideologies and especially those touching foreign policies cannot be debated effectively without exploring their empirical influence. The exposition of the US foreign policy on national security is a worthy illustration of an international policy deeply infiltrating into nations of the world. There has been growing global debate on such issues as the impacts of globalization, climate change and global warming as well as terrorism. The U.S government has played an upper hand in what most political analysts would call unrealistic and pre-eminent encroachment on private matters of other countries. Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More In this respect, United States has taken a global dimension in emerging socio-political and economic issues. Moreover, even as the debate on the adopted national security policies heightens, less has been addressed in modern studies of political science. Is the world conscious of this so called U.S foreign protectionist policy towards the less fortunate and disadvantaged nations? Or is the U.S foreign policy proposition beyond cheap publicity and primacy as purported by the opponents? Can this aggression towards foreign policy be empirically measured? Realism, so to speak, would focus on the genuine creation of a justified, free and open administrative structures void of any form of coercion, intimidation or corrupted and misinterpreted rule of law. It would also gear itself towards promotion of such systems politically perceived by majority as democratic (Lieber 29). Various forms of power that are cherished in democracy are exercised here and they are not limited to cultural, economic and technological power. The key objective in a realistic structure is to build, enhance and promote rather than subduing the weaker ones. The means of harnessing power does not matter whatsoever provided that the accrued benefits belong to the state. In a sharp contrast though, the Obama administration may not be leaving an imprint of an indelible mark. As a result, it sharply contrasts with the Quincy statement that elevates the U.S policy on National Security as fair and justifies. On the other hand, National Security that touches on liberalism primarily focuses on the initiation, care and universal promotion of liberal democratic governments which do not abet unjust human practices in disguise of security. There is inevitably strong foundation for the rule of law as well as in-fights among mature democracies like that of U.S. According to Walt (95), the 1980s witnessed a serious aggression between the U.S and the Soviet Union owing to the enmity that communism brought. The political ideology of communism was a big threat to the Americans at this time. Ronald Reagan, a soldier during cold war was then implored by U.S to go to Washington and divert any possible threat that could be posed by communism. We will write a custom Research Paper on US National Security and Foreign Policy specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Even as this was happening, the United States was highly alarmed at how Japan was growing economically. Unfortunately, Japan’s economic strategies failed and as a result, its economy slumped while U.S “…enjoyed eight years of robust economic growth…” (Walt 98). In a nut shell, U.S was in a hectic search for allies, bearing in mind that it had gained the super power status by this time. It deployed a policy of “fit or quit” by embracing those who gave it support and punishing the “rogue ones”. Up to date, U.S has tirelessly and consistently attempted to persuade and convince several countries to acknowledge their “liberal capitalist world order” (Walt 108). Recent events have shed more light on this debate. For example, the historical September 11, 2001 attack of the twin towers was a wake-up call in U.S; probably in the wrong direction altogether. Some political scientists referred to it as the “power of weakness” in the sense that the weapon that was used to shake this world power was merely a box cutter and a fellow ready to sacrifice his life. This was like an impotent attack which surprisingly left too much pain and terror in this nation. How then did U.S react to this? Was the attack a national or global affair? The nation developed a desire to have full control of the terrorists and terror countries. Besides, it aimed at assimilating technological advancement for the sole purpose of solidifying its own power in the pretext of foreign policy. AS Garret (148) observes, the U.S government continued to act smart by playing lip service to democracy. In addition, the U.S government was quite relieved when Communism collapsed. This meant one thing: its expansionist plan would be right on track, spreading its tentacles far and wide and upholding the super power status. Sincerely, this was about power, influence, control and dominance. The U.S invasion of Iraq over the alleged weapons of mass destruction and consequent execution of Saddam Hussein was a vivid impact of its foreign policy on National Security. Lieber (231) notes that there are many advantages enjoyed when power and supremacy are on board. The very policy was adopted by U.S prior to the Iraqi War on terror. The author further expounds that power does not guarantee influence all the time. It is the very reason why US did not get the simple majority support in the Iraqi War. The nine out of fifteen votes could not be reached by the U.N Security Council to allow this super power stamp its authority on Iraq. Surprisingly, even those countries who were mostly assisted by U.S like Chile and Mexico were reluctant to offer their support. This must have been a lesson to the U.S sycophants and political technocrats. According to MacLean, the infamous foreign policies are trivial ideologies to harness power, primacy and influence (123). Not sure if you can write a paper on US National Security and Foreign Policy by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The fact that U.S has a veto power, she went ahead and attacked Iraq. This was a “foreign policy” that left thousands of innocent Iraqis in dire need of humanitarian assistance. The innocent civilians are yet to come to terms with the crisis that followed after the war. What about the U.S allegations that Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, he was later executed on the basis of these claims. Surprisingly, the label ‘weapons of mass destruction’ has not been proved to date. The world is still skeptical why the Bush administration attacked Iraq. In order to further explore the validity of Quincy’s statement, it is imperative to investigate the politics of constructivism in relation to National Security. It will assist in shedding more light to the emerging, yet ever changing conventional practices related to human rights, sovereign status of democracies and the application of justice (Fukuyama 176). Nonetheless, has the Obama administration been on the persuasive end to solicit for international support as a power pyramid plan? Some proponents of these foreign policies may perhaps be right. However, strategic foreign policy agenda that is free of political undertones is a welcome idea. Lieber argues that “…a grand strategy put into practice can be as important as the substance of that strategy…” (86). If the U.S foreign policy on National Security is anything to go by, then the empirical outcome of these strategies should be applauded by all and sundry. Mandelbaum provokes some thoughtful insight when he asserts that “if United States provides useful…services…to the world, why does…foreign policy provoke such frequent, widespread and bitter criticism?” (XVIII). The author further elaborates the September 11 terrorist act which was overwhelmingly condemned by U.S. Although acts of terror are as old as mankind, this appeared as the climax of all acts of terrorism in U.S history. The underlying rationale why the Al Qaeda launched this terror move was to topple the Saudi Arabia monarch in power which was a close associate of the U.S. What about the Obama administration? Does it uphold the salient features of the John Quincy statement? Firstly, the Obama administration has often reiterated that Islam is not a foe and that the war on terrorism has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. Besides, the incumbent President has reiterated the need for U.S to watch iver the development of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs. There are myriad foreign policies touching on security as stipulated in the current administrative structure. Notwithstanding this noble security plan by Obama administration, there is still some relentless pursuit by the very government to disarm its eastern foes. The rationale is unclear but there are doubts about Obama administration having followed in the footsteps of its predecessor. The U.S government and its citizenry strictly uphold to the principles of democracy and rule of law. That is why political leadership is democratically elected into office by the people. Similarly, constitutional office bearers like the Supreme Court judges are appointed legally by keenly adhering to existing laws and statutes. Moreover, the Congress has the mandate to make or amend laws which then becomes legally binding to all citizens. Such a leadership arrangement is well understood by everybody and contravening the law can be challenged through the judicial system. This appears to be a similar leadership arrangement in most democratic governments. To this end, critics of U.S aggression have always questioned the appointing authority in world governance. In other terms, why has the U.S government assumed total leadership over the world? Who appointed or directed it to do so? It may indeed be a paradox for a country claiming to pursue democracy while totalitarian ideology is the top agenda in its international matters. The basic role of democracy is missing here (Mandelbaum, 2000). The main grievance is that of representation. The U.S has taken a representative role of governing the world. This has led to numerous protests which can be directly linked to U.S “fatherhood” spirit. A clear cut illustration of this can be traced back on the climate change and global warming debate. As a precaution to reduce greenhouse emission which is believed to contribute significantly to global warming, countries of the world convened in Japan and unanimously agreed to stick to Kyoto protocol. Unfortunately, U.S failed to honor the agreement despite being one of the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases. Besides, the recently concluded Copenhagen talks on climate change ended in disillusionment with U.S not walking the talk as a world leader. Its foreign policies should have been handy at this time when the world is struggling to come into terms with the devastating effects of climate change which is a matter of national security if intently investigated. There is the belief that George W. Bush had become neoconservative by the threshold of his second term. Bush was once quoted to have said that the U.S military is not meant to build the nation but rather to “fight and win war” (Fukuyama 165). Moreover, his foreign policy advisor Condoleezza Rice added her voice to this matter when she asserted that U.S troops had no duty escorting children to school. These assertions were coherent enough to brand U.S as non-committed to the path of democracy when securing its borders. In fact, George W. Bush was more than ready to extend his “war and win” agenda to Iraq. As Fukuyama observes, Bush attempted to ideologically justify a war that would have been prevented. This, according to many of his critics, soiled the political governance of his second term (Garrett 173). The intrigues of U.S foreign policy remain to be debatable as well as eliciting mixed reactions to the world at large. It must indeed be something else. Since Obama took over the oath of a presidential office, he has relentlessly pursued the restoration of U.S authority in Latin America (Viotti 76). However, critics have a stand that this partnership may not be of central importance to U.S; there is more than meets the eye. If this position is anything to go by, then Quincy’s statement leaves a sour taste in the mouth of political analysts and the general public since it lacks credibility at some point. Works Cited Fukuyama, Francis. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. Garrett, A. Stephen. Doing good and doing well: an examination of humanitarian intervention, Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. Hardt, Michael

Chapters 18-19 of O’Reilly’s “Killing the Rising Sun” Essay

Table of Contents Introduction Main body Connecting Three Themes: Hirohito, Oppenheimer, and Stimson Conclusion Works Cited Introduction In the eighteenth chapter of their book, O’Reilly and Dugard describe the point in time when WWII was nearly over, with the German troops capitulating, yet the long-lasting confrontation between the United States and Japan had not ended yet. The preparation for the launching of the atomic bombs is taking place. O’Reilly and Dugard spend a significant amount of the chapter on the description of the bombs and the mechanics behind the implementation of the plan. For instance, the unceasing supervision of the process with the assistance of Captain Parsons. The latter interacts with the people involved in the process actively, with the preparation for the launch of the bombs being in development. Main body In the meantime, the Japanese government and its emperor Hirohito remain unsuspecting of the events that are about to happen. O’Reilly and Dugard mention that the situation observed in Japan could be summarized using the local term “bukimi,” or the state of uncertainty (p. 272). Due to the presence of the political tension in the relationships between the U.S. and Japan, the feeling of impending doom permeates the atmosphere of the Japanese society, affecting the way in which people interact. However, remarkably enough, Emperor Hirohito remains calm throughout the entire time, managing the issues of home and foreign politics. While Japanese citizens follow their daily routine, the test for the Trinity A-bomb is performed in the New Mexico desert, thus concluding the preparation stage and leading to the next step of the Manhattan Project. In the U.S. setting, the impression that the Manhattan project, which was started by Oppenheimer and was about to be implemented by Colonel Paul Tibbets was not merely an inevitable evil but a crucial step toward world peace. The air of unease between the participants of the mission piques as the aircraft is about to be piloted to Hiroshima: “There is tension between the two men, for Enola Gay was Lewis’s aircraft before Tibbets chose to change the name and fly it on this mission” (287). O’Reilly and Dugard switch between the discussion of the mission in the U.S. and the calm and peaceful daily life of Japanese people to juxtapose the environments and emphasize the scale of the tragedy that is about to take place. For this purpose, the next chapter is dedicated to the description of Japanese citizens’ lives, specifically, the plans and aspirations of sixteen-year-old Akira Onogi, twenty-year-old Akiko Takakura, and other innocent people. As Japanese citizens hear the siren, Enola Gay flies above the state and drops the first bomb on Hiroshima. A minute later, Little Boy, the second bomb, is dropped on Nagasaki. However, after the bomb is dropped, the internal problems within the U.S. government remain unresolved. The lack of trust between President Truman and General Douglas MacArthur stays a point of concern, with most Americans remaining unaware of the ethical implications of the Manhattan Project. In Japan, Hirohito is rather morose. Finally, the second bomb, the Fat Man, is dropped on Nagasaki, leading to even more devastating results. Even though Hirohito considered joining forces with Russia to oppose the U.S. after Hiroshima had been destroyed, the final attack leaves Hirohito in shambles. As Bockscar completes its mission, the U.S. plans to drop the third bomb on Japan, yet the message received from Hirohito indicates that the empire is about to collapse, and Hirohito discusses the idea of the complete surrender with his subordinates. Being manipulated by his prime minister Hideki Tojo, Hirohito finally yields, and a range of uncomfortable truths about the Japanese government and especially Tojo is exposed, the ugliest one concerning the “comfort stations” and the infamous “Unit 731” (O’Reilly and Dugard 363-366). Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More The U.S. suggests that Japan should surrender, while Hirohito will remain protected from further trial. With the introduction of Russian troops into the picture, the process of managing the military confrontation remains problematic for the U.S. troops. In their attempts to locate Hirohito, the troops search the entire area of the underground bunker, yet to no avail. Finally, President Truman receives a message from the Japanese government stating that Hirohito surrenders, which leads to the conclusion of the war. While the Japanese society is trying to process the defeat, the United States Navy creates premises for the U.S. to display “a massive show of force” (O’Reilly and Dugard 395). However, the war continued for Hideki Tojo, who continues struggling for victory. Tojo attempts suicide, yet his plan is thwarted, and the war is finally declared to be over. During the International Military Tribunal, several Japanese men are sentenced to death, while the latter is imprisoned for life for their war crimes (O’Reilly and Dugard 418). Connecting Three Themes: Hirohito, Oppenheimer, and Stimson Being one of the most devastating tragedies of the 20th century, WWII infamously ignited conflicts between countries across the entire globe, leading to horrendous outcomes and prompting completely inhumane acts of violence. The conflict between the United States and Japan, which ended in the notorious atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is worth exploring as the scenario that created a significant ambiguity regarding the surrender of Japan in the global community (Reed 89). Furthermore, the scenario created by Oppenheimer and implying the immediate bombing of Nagasaki after the attack on Hiroshima is worth questioning whether the way in which WWII ended was a necessity or whether it was a tragic mistake that should have never taken place in the history of the humankind. It would be an understatement to claim that the Pacific War was fuelled and sustained by a large number of political figures. However, in the described events, Hirohito, Oppenheimer, and Stimson seem to be the key players that defined the way in which the events of the bombing took place. Exploring the outcomes of Hirohito’s choices, one will have to concede that his figure was by far the most controversial one. On the one hand, his misguided attempts at taking charge of world politics, at the same time remaining in blissful ignorance about the Manhattan Project and its implications for Japan are deservedly scorned by the global society. On the other hand, given the fact that Hirohito was, in fact, a shadow puppet of Tojo, his lack of concern for American politics and the impending doom of the U.S. attack can be seen as quite predictable. Thus, when assessing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, it impossible to pin down the weight of responsibility for the lives of innocent people on either of the parties. The project that Oppenheimer developed was a shocking and despicable concept, yet the lingering belief in its necessity as the crowning achievement in ending the global confrontation was an understandable rationale for addressing the ostensible threat (Sullivan 217). We will write a custom Essay on Chapters 18-19 of O’Reilly’s “Killing the Rising Sun” specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Oppenheimer, in turn, was a much more controversial figure. Looking back at the concept of the Manhattan Project, it was evident that the lives of millions of people were sacrificed for the sake of reaching a dominant position in a political confrontation. The overall tone of his message during his speech to the American people was self-congratulatory rather than containing any semblance of bitter necessity: Robert Oppenheimer stands before an auditorium filled with the scientists who designed and produced the atomic bomb. Clasping his hands over his head like a boxer entering the ring, he tells the cheering audience that it is “too early to determine what the results of the bombing might have been, but I’m pretty sure the Japanese didn’t like it.” (O’Reilly and Dugard 323) Thus, arguably, Oppenheimer created the platform for the idea of the Manhattan Project to become not only palatable but also acceptable in American society. In retrospect, the roles that Oppenheimer, Hirohito, and Stimson played in the tragic events were closely connected to one another, each representing a link in the chain of events that led to the deaths of millions of people. Conclusion Therefore, it can be assumed that the events of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, which took millions of lives and was marked as one of the greatest tragedies in world history, could be seen as the effect of the anxieties and decisions of two powerful states and two powerful people colliding. In the grand scheme of events and the tremendous role that both Hirohito and Oppenheimer played in the implementation of the project (O’Reilly and Rooney 175). While Oppenheimer, who planned the bombing and made the necessary decisions, and Hirohito, who chose the line of behavior that led to the bombing, embodied the political powers that tore Japan asunder, Stimson represented the attempts at reconciling the sides of the conflict. Nonetheless, each of the three parties contributed to the aggravation of the conflict, fuelling it until it reached the point of no return. Works Cited O’Reilly, Bill, and Martin Dugard. Killing the Rising Sun. Henry Holt and Company, 2016. O’Reilly, Charles T., and William A. Rooney. The Enola Gay and the Smithsonian Institution. McFarland, 2015. Reed, Bruce Cameron. “The Ongoing Story of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Decades After the Use of a Previously Unthinkable Weapon, a Consensus on Making That Choice Remains Elusive.” American Scientist, vol. 106, no. 2, 2018, pp. 88-95. Not sure if you can write a paper on Chapters 18-19 of O’Reilly’s “Killing the Rising Sun” by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Sullivan, Neil J. The Prometheus Bomb: The Manhattan Project and Government in the Dark. University of Nebraska Press, 2016.

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service