The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Hiroshima & Nagasaki vs Pearl Harbor. What was worse

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 83814
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Although you may argue that the bombing of H&N was to end the war. I argue that the war could of ended differently. These bombing killed a total of 220,000. While pearl harbor killed 2,403. H&N were attacks on citizens. While Pearl Harbor was an act of declaration of war. Both were saddening, but H&N were much worse.


I accept this debate challenge. As con, I contend that the attack on Pearl Harbor was worse than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On the surface, the sheer number of casualties and proportion of civilians killed would make it seem like attacks by the US on the Japanese were "worse," but let's take a moment to consider the implications.

1. The attacks on Pearl Harbor were initiated when the US and Japan were not at war. Japan may have attacked a military base rather than a major US city, but it did so without first declaring war, and in a surprise attack. When the US commenced bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, war was well underway, and had been going on for almost four years. Simply looking at rules of military engagement, PH was worse than H&N.

2. The US gave warning of its attacks to civilians in an effort to clear out Hiroshima before the first bomb was dropped, dropping leaflets and informing citizens of what was coming. Japan gave no advance warning to allow those in Pearl Harbor to evacuate.

Also, after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the US told Japan that there would be another bomb if they did not surrender. Japan made the choice to subject its people to another atomic bomb, rather than ending a conflict that they started, and neglecting the warnings from the US to evacuate cities that had been targeted.

3. If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, perhaps war between the two countries could have been avoided. When the US dropped the bombs, it was to end a conflict and minimize casualties. While Japan's attack was meant to deal damage, the US dropped the bombs to force Japan into a surrender before more damage could be done. Had the US opted to engage military forces in a ground invasion of Japan instead, as was the alternative military option considered by the Truman administration, fighting would have lasted years, and it's estimated that millions of allied forces - and tens of millions of Japanese - would have been killed.

If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, thousands of lives could have been saved. If the US had not dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, millions more would have died.
Debate Round No. 1


Wow. I forfeit. This was one of the only debates on that's actually pure facts instead of just opinion. I know when i have been defeated good sir.I also didnt know that the U.S gave warnings, the more you know. So please teach me your ways :D (seriously that was a very well written debate.)


Thanks, I've always thought that a debate without facts isn't a debate at all. It was a cool topic and fun to research.
Debate Round No. 2


DarkPoet forfeited this round.


Since the debate is over, I thought I would tell a joke, but it would probably bomb.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO conceded the debate