The Instigator
TheWaxy28
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
hmm
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Dropping The Bombs On Japan Was Tactically Correct And Morally Right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheWaxy28
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 56107
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

TheWaxy28

Pro

PREFACE: This will be a one round debate. I ask of my opponent that he/she shows respect and sites his or her sources. Counter arguments may be considered in the only round of the debate. Straying from the topic is fine as long as it helps address the debate. My position of the subject, which is whether or not the United States of America should've dropped the bombs on Japan in 1945, is that it was tactically correct and also morally right. Best of luck and may the best argument win.

DEBATE:
It's imperative to remember that Japan was a fascist county at the time of World War 2. Fascism countries in general have a population that not only glorifies their military but also has extreme pride in their country, and will go down to the last man standing to defend it and its ideals. Moreover, as shown in the bloody battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Japan was in fact like this in the early 1940s. Or at least, they had an extremely strong military.

A large reason behind Truman and the US government deciding to drop the atomic bombs on Japan was because they wanted to end the war swiftly, with the Nazis and Fascist Italy already defeated in early 1945. Ending the war swiftly was key due to the fact that the USSR was already trying to gain prestige by defeating the Japanese forces. This would've threatened the US' power if their military forces didn't get Japan to surrender before the USSR did. This was one huge tactical plus to dropping the atom bombs. In addition, the US would be thrust into a position of significant world power after the fact, with many countries in Europe such as France in ruins, both infrastructure-wise and economically.

As for moral concerns, the United States had a plethora of them. It was even suggested that a demonstration bomb was an option, and that there was another one (either the "FAT MAN" or "LITTLE BOY") in case Japan wasn't impressed. However, as stated before, a strong, powerful, and also resilient nation such as 1940s Japan would likely not surrender because of mere footage. Another option was offering Japan conditional surrender, but Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill agreed at the Atlantic Charter that was not a viable choice, keeping in mind the last time a country was given conditional surrender (Germany after World War 1), it didn't turn out so well as Germany wound up being one of the driving causes of World War 2. The reasons for that, while extensive, are not the target of this example. Therefore, granted that Truman was president when the decision regarding the atom bomb arose, it was still a significant point made at the Atlantic Charter.

A moral justification for dropping the bomb was that thousands if not tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives could be saved by dropping the bombs and instilling fear into Japan. Invading Japan would've been a lengthy and bloody process. Keep in mind that the US military would've faced resistance that would've been difficult to break through. The soldiers of Japan would be fighting for their families. Consider the fact that island hopping didn't always go smoothly, and that the islands that the US captured prior to 1945 almost always paled in comparison to Japan's main island. Furthermore, Japanese lives were probably saved too by dropping the atomic bombs. Why you may ask? Civilian casualties wouldn't be uncommon at all at the major population centers of Japan. Airstrikes and other lethal instruments of war could've easily killed just as many as the atom bombs did, even if the Japanese citizens did in fact duck and cover.

Part of why it was a credible decision to drop the atomic bombs was because multiple scientists agreed that it should've been used, and they obviously knew well enough some of the repercussions of nuclear warfare. There were some that didn't though, like Albert Einstein. What was critical though overall was that other nations in fact were racing to produce the atom bomb, like Germany. Therefore, harnessing nuclear power for war in general definitely couldn't have been avoided by not using the atom bombs on Japan. Besides that, addressing the moral side of the topic it's clear that many deaths of an atomic bomb explosion are instant, like a bullet to the brain. However, sometimes gunshot wounds are lethal but take a while to kill, with little to no hope of survival for the victim. The same applies to atomic bombs, except the method of slow death in question is radiation sickness. As highlighted here, the long term effects of radiation are very immoral, but so is the destruction of multiple cities in Japan and the destruction of peoples' homes, and lives- literally.

In conclusion, it's important to note that the Hiroshima city had a military base with many troops, as a matter of fact 40,000+. Japan's aggressive tactics such as their use of bonsai and kamikazes illustrated deeply what lengths they'd go to kill American troops, and therefore the USA knew that they had no choice but to drop the bombs in order to save the lives of American troops and also preserve some Japanese civilian safety. Last but not least, Truman's undersecretary of State Joseph Grew himself said that he believed Japan would fight down to the last man. Who wouldn't have at least attempted to use an atomic bomb when so many Japanese civilian lives and American soldiers' lives at stake? A number of lives far greater than the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined? If death was unavoidable, and each death is a tragedy, then the atom bombs caused some tragedies and saved many other ones because their usage was tactically correct and morally right!
hmm

Con

By august the 6th the war in Europe was over and there was no way that japan could defeat the global superpowers of America and The Soviet Union who were preparing to join. the two bombs that America dropped caused the deaths of around 200,000 people. Around half (the lucky ones) were killed instantly. The rest were slowly poisoned as the radiation got into the water supply and crops making the whole area unliveable in for thousands of years.
It is arguable that without the two atomic bombs and the two billion pounds America spent building them we would not have nuclear weapons today. So yes America ended the war quickly and no more Americans died but 200,000 innocent civilians did. and should it ever come to nuclear war think of how many millions would die because America atom bombed japan 69 years ago.
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
@Soundboard - It doesn't matter what you believe; rather, what matters is what was said in the debate. Con very clearly failed to sufficiently warrant his position. Pro put forth a great deal more effort into constructing his arguments. Therefore, Pro wins even if you disagree with the stance he took.
Posted by SBDEBATER1 2 years ago
SBDEBATER1
I agree Mr soundboard. I couldn't fathom the idea of killing thousands as being MORALLY CORRECT OR TACTFUL either. That is absolutely Ridiculous and stupid.
Posted by Mr_Soundboard 2 years ago
Mr_Soundboard
wow what an age we live in where a guy who debates that it is MORALLY correct to kill hundreds of thousands of people actually wins the debate...not to mention rather idiotic idea that it was tactically necessary.
Posted by SBDEBATER1 2 years ago
SBDEBATER1
Realistically 69 years ago it was considered morally and tactfully correct. But if you think about it know in this day and age you should realize that its different now. Dropping a ATOMIC bomb was not very tactdul thousands where killed. Yes morally its seemed right at that time but there were other ways of dealing with it.
Posted by SBDEBATER1 2 years ago
SBDEBATER1
Realistically 69 years ago it was considered morally and tactfully correct. But if you think about it know in this day and age you should realize that its different now. Dropping a ATOMIC bomb was not very tactdul thousands where killed. Yes morally its seemed right at that time but there were other ways of dealing with it.
Posted by Jevinigh 2 years ago
Jevinigh
The problem with your debate is that you included morality into its premise. Morality, changes over the ages and looking back at past events we have the luxury of knowing that events consequences and so have an updated morality about it.

No, the bomb was not morally acceptable by today's standards. That is all that really matters on that side of the topic. But as for logistically and tactically, absolutely. I would have gave the order if I was in that position.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by revic 2 years ago
revic
TheWaxy28hmmTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was short in his words, but has the stronger arguments.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
TheWaxy28hmmTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put forth an adequate round, with his primary argument being that the usage of the bombs instilled fear in the Japanese, and they surrendered, sparing both countries even more deaths in ground fighting. Con never touched on this, talking only about the harm done to those involved. To me this is not convincing. I know the 200,000 suffered, and Pro doesn't contend that point, he just says the suffering was necessary, and Con never attempts to show the suffering as unnecessary. Con's additional argument that the use of the bombs led to the amount of bombs we have today isn't explained well and therefore not helping his case at all.