The Instigator
CAPLlock
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Plato_ATODT
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 18413
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

CAPLlock

Con

I do wish that this debate be more active then my last.
Bombing is the event where we used nukes on the 2 cities.

R1 is Acceptance
Plato_ATODT

Pro

I will argue that they were net positive actions for the US government to take.
Debate Round No. 1
CAPLlock

Con

Because Pro is saying the nukes were needed, he has to prove it was the BEST/reasonable solution in the making Japan stop fighting.

For starters.
It was a Terrorist attack

1.�‚��person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates violence or threats of violence, esp., in pursuit of politcal goals 2.�‚��person who terrorizes or frightens others with violence

http://m.dictionary.com......

A war crime

"murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian
necessity".[1]

Gary D. Solish (2010) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" Dr. Leo Szilard

3. Furthermore using atomic weapons was military unnecessary.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W.
Report this Argument
Plato_ATODT

Pro

Con states that the atomic bombs were terrorist attacks without stating why that is a bad thing. Such language choice is an appeal to emotion. Con then does the same by using the phrase "war crimes" without giving any reason for why "war crimes" should not be done. History is written by the winner, and crimes are defined by the winner. Dr. Leo Szilard makes a statement to point out our hypocrisy. Yes, it is true, we are hypocritical. That is not a reason that we should not have taken the actions that we did.

Con brings in a quote from Eisenhower. Eisenhower was not in charge of the Pacific theatre and had only limited knowledge of what was going on. His expertise is not relevant in this case.

It was a common disconnect between military leaders of the USA and realities of the Japanese mindset. Every military leader recognized that Japan was defeated militarily, based on the info that was present at the time. However, the American idea of "defeated" is not the same as the Japanese idea of "defeated." It was seen in many of the islands that the US took in the pacific that the Japanese would fight until the death, even when they were defeated by western standards. There is no reason to believe that there would be any difference with the Japanese in the homeland.

Given their military state at the end of July in 1945, the Japanese still refused the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the first Atomic bomb was dropped, they refused. The Japanese held several conditions that they wanted to be accepted before surrendering.
1) Maintenance of the Imperial Institution.
2) They would be responsible for their own disarming
3) No occupation of Japanese land, Korea, or Taiwan, which they would all keep.
4) Immunity from war crime trials.
The Emperor stated on his August 14th recording of surrender, "The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."
Looking to the Kyujo incident, it was a coup attempt by the Imperial Guard of Japan and the Ministry of War for Japan, with the direct intention of taking over the nation for the sole purpose of not surrendering and fighting on.

This history proves that what we thought was a "defeated nation" was still willing to fight and die, even when they knew that they would lose.

On to reasons why the bomb dropping was the best option. We need to look at what the other options were. Continued fire bombings would only kill more civilians. The Japanese military had seen numerous fire bombings and were not swayed by the loss of life. Therefore, this tactic would only kill more people without ending the war. That makes it an inferior option. A land invasion was estimated to cost over 100,000 American lives, which many estimates being over 200,000. This would most likely have been higher, since the Japanese had accurately predicted the route of the American invasion and laid out counter plans with Operation Ketsugō. This explicitly states that kamikaze pilots were to target transport ships, rather than destroyers. This would greatly increase deaths over the US predictions. It should be noted that 200,000 US deaths is already close to the level of deaths from the atomic bombs, adding Japanese deaths, it would go far beyond that. So a ground invasion would result in more death. The last option is letting the Russians do what Russians do best, walk in and kill with no regard for their own lives. While this would result is no American deaths, it would almost certainly result in more total deaths because of the Russian fighting style and occupation style.

If my opponent knows of a better method, I encourage him to speak now.

Sources:
http://www.history.army.mil...
Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, 2001
Debate Round No. 2
CAPLlock

Con

Con states that the atomic bombs were terrorist attacks without stating why that is a bad thing. Such language choice is an appeal to emotion. Con then does the same by using the phrase "war crimes" without giving any reason for why "war crimes" should not be done. History is written by the winner, and crimes are defined by the winner. Dr. Leo Szilard makes a statement to point out our hypocrisy. Yes, it is true, we are hypocritical. That is not a reason that we should not have taken the actions that we did.

Pro states that I didnt give reason to why, but he has done same.


It was a common disconnect between military leaders of the USA and realities of the Japanese mindset. Every military leader recognized that Japan was defeated militarily, based on the info that was present at the time. However, the American idea of "defeated" is not the same as the Japanese idea of "defeated." It was seen in many of the islands that the US took in the pacific that the Japanese would fight until the death, even when they were defeated by western standards. There is no reason to believe that there would be any difference with the Japanese in the homeland.

Pro has yet tp prove what the differences are. The only difference is that they will fight for "face".


On to reasons why the bomb dropping was the best option. We need to look at what the other options were. Continued fire bombings would only kill more civilians. The Japanese military had seen numerous fire bombings and were not swayed by the loss of life. Therefore, this tactic would only kill more people without ending the war. That makes it an inferior option. A land invasion was estimated to cost over 100,000 American lives, which many estimates being over 200,000. This would most likely have been higher, since the Japanese had accurately predicted the route of the American invasion and laid out counter plans with Operation Ketsugō. This explicitly states that kamikaze pilots were to target transport ships, rather than destroyers. This would greatly increase deaths over the US predictions. It should be noted that 200,000 US deaths is already close to the level of deaths from the atomic bombs, adding Japanese deaths, it would go far beyond that. So a ground invasion would result in more death. The last option is letting the Russians do what Russians do best, walk in and kill with no regard for their own lives. While this would result is no American deaths, it would almost certainly result in more total deaths because of the Russian fighting style and occupation style.

I would try to find a way to stop the fighting without them losing face.

Plato_ATODT

Pro

Plato_ATODT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
CAPLlock

Con

I see Pro has forfeited. Lets see what the 2 last rounds have in store.
Plato_ATODT

Pro

Plato_ATODT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Plato_ATODT

Pro

Plato_ATODT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by visini 5 years ago
visini
I believe that the first one was needed, because if we didn't, Japan WOULDN'T have stopped fighting. But the second one was horrible, because the US already knew that Japan was about to surrender, but they dropped it anyways.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
I agree with most everything. You just have to prove it was the best thing to do
Posted by Plato_ATODT 5 years ago
Plato_ATODT
Lets say there are many options before you to invest in. You take option G, which results in 13.7% growth. There was another option, option K, that would have resulted in 14.2% growth. Though option K would have had a better growth, was option G a "bad" investment? It made a good amount of money, so I'd argue that it was a good idea.

However, if you want to argue that there was a better option, that's fine, so long as you are not arguing that we should have nuked two different cities.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
That is correct might I add that other better solutions could have been taken
Posted by Plato_ATODT 5 years ago
Plato_ATODT
I assume that you are Con to the US doing those events?

Which means I am Pro to them?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
CAPLlockPlato_ATODTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
CAPLlockPlato_ATODTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Neither side was very convincing but Con prevails due to Pro's non-response.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
CAPLlockPlato_ATODTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit