The Instigator
CAPLlock
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
innomen
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Hiroshima and nagasaki bombing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
innomen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2011 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,992 times Debate No: 18944
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

CAPLlock

Con

You know the drill.
R1 acceptance
innomen

Pro

Resolution: It was a resonable decision to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at that time in world history.

I am pro and will be defending the resolution, con the challenger must prove that it was not a resonable decision.
Debate Round No. 1
CAPLlock

Con

Main Entry: rea�son�able
Pronunciation: \ˈrēz-nə-bəl, ˈrē-zən-ə-bəlFunction: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : being in accordance with reason b : not extreme or excessive c : moderate, fair d : inexpensive
2 a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment
— rea�son�abil�i�ty \ˌrēz-nə-ˈbi-lə-tē, ˌrē-zən-ə-\ noun
— rea�son�able�ness \ˈrēz-nə-bəl-nəs, ˈrē-zən-ə-\ noun
— rea�son�ably \-blē\ adverb
http://i.word.com...

With the end of the European war, the Allies focused their efforts on Japan. Japan still fought fanatically, despite being badly hurt by bombing and blockade.
The Potsdam Proclamation, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, was issued. It made no mention of Japan's central surrender condition: the status of the Emperor. Japan rejected the Proclamation.
The Japanese believed the Emperor to be a god (this is a key point).
The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia declared war against Japan.
Japan, because of its military, still refused to surrender.
Japanese peace advocates, fearing the imminent destruction of the Emperor, prevailed upon the Emperor to break with tradition and make government policy by calling for peace now. The Emperor did so.
As the result of the Emperor's call for surrender, the entire Japanese cabinet, including the military, agreed to surrender. The cabinet saw that this would allow the Emperor to be retained.
Even Japan's doves would have fought to the death had they not felt the Emperor would be spared. They saw "unconditional surrender" as a threat to the Emperor.
President Truman had been advised of the importance of the Emperor to the Japanese.
Japan was seeking Russia's help to end the war in July 1945. The U.S. was aware of this at the time thru intercepted Japanese cables. But the U.S. did not keep up with this change in Japan's position.
The U.S. chose military methods of ending the war rather than diplomatic methods. The desire for revenge helped make military methods more attractive.

We probably could have ended the war sooner with fewer deaths on all sides by using the full carrot and stick: 1) offer retention of the Emperor for a quick surrender; and 2) threaten Russian invasion and 3) atomic destruction as the alternative. None of these key incentives to surrender were used prior to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

http://www.doug-long.com...
innomen

Pro

I thank my opponent for the challenge on this particular subject.

First, it was nice to read my opponent's assessment of the inner workings of the Japanese military and political structure during WWII, and his rough time line within their context.

However, I'd like to point out that that angle of argument is wholly irrelevant to the resolution: " It was a reasonable decision to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at that time in world history."
The decision to drop the bomb was made by the American president Harry Truman, and what was happening in the Japanese government had only a bearing on that decision only in so far as the limited intelligence on what happened in the Japanese government and military strategists, that reached the president. I submit that that the vast bulk of Japanese military planning and internal interactions were not known to the president, and were of secondary consideration to the decision to drop the bomb. The primary consideration was, 'would it effectively end the war', and 'would it end the Americans dying in the war against Japan'.

I'd also like to call into question the source that my opponent used to base his argument. Doug Long who apparently wrote a non published short summary of events, is an obscure Associate Professor at an unremarkable college. Citing him as a reference is pretty weak as a source, and from looking at his assessment of the war, and the dropping of the bomb, it is understandable why he is an Associate Professor.

I'd also like to call out the judgment called "revenge" by this obscure Associate Professor. We are talking about a world war where 60 million people were killed, that would be 2.5% of the world's population [1]. I'm not exactly sure how the word revenge even works in the midst of a war that was so catastrophic. It is bad history when a contemporary judgment is made on a time without fully understanding its context. Revenge is almost by definition a component of war, particularly a war that was not initiated by those who are seeking vengeance. If my opponent believes that we should have turned the other cheek after Pearl Harbor, then that would be fodder for another debate, but in the minds of most, and in the context of international discourse, retaliation is both warranted and justified. Revenge can also serve a purpose in dissuading future aggression.

Furthermore, I would assert that the objective of war is to win with the least number of casualties, damage and resources on your side.

My opponent asserts that there was ample opportunity for a peaceful resolution, and that is not the case. The Japanese were given an opportunity after Potsdam to surrender unconditionally, and in particular, have the Emperor removed from his throne, as this was seen as a future militaristic source of direction for Japan. Japan rejected this proposal [2].

As always, bad history ignores the context of the time. By 1945 Europe was destroyed, and the European allies were crippled in their ability to contribute to the Pacific theater. Americans had been returning dead for years at this point, and it is very important to understand that the Americans that were killed were largely draftees; this is no small point in trying to understand the context of the time. It is somewhat of a foreign concept for Americans now to think of being drafted and killed in a far off place. 175,000 American men that were involuntarily conscripted into the armed forces of the US were killed [3].

Although it is impossible to quantify the number of American lives saved by dropping the atomic bomb, it is clear that it ended the war faster and unconditionally more than any other method that could have been employed.
It is also worth saying that that this experience that the Japanese endured was the prime catalyst to the destruction of their militaristic society, and paved a way for a peace movement that would last indefinitely.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://library.thinkquest.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
CAPLlock

Con

However, I'd like to point out that that angle of argument is wholly irrelevant to the resolution: " It was a reasonable decision to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at that time in world history."
The decision to drop the bomb was made by the American president Harry Truman, and what was happening in the Japanese government had only a bearing on that decision only in so far as the limited intelligence on what happened in the Japanese government and military strategists, that reached the president. I submit that that the vast bulk of Japanese military planning and internal interactions were not known to the president, and were of secondary consideration to the decision to drop the bomb. The primary consideration was, 'would it effectively end the war', and 'would it end the Americans dying in the war against Japan'.

I come back to this later.


I'd also like to call into question the source that my opponent used to base his argument. Doug Long who apparently wrote a non published short summary of events, is an obscure Associate Professor at an unremarkable college. Citing him as a reference is pretty weak as a source, and from looking at his assessment of the war, and the dropping of the bomb, it is understandable why he is an Associate Professor.

Are you attacking him or his sources? This is irrelevant.


Furthermore, I would assert that the objective of war is to win with the least number of casualties, damage and resources on your side.

http://dictionary.reference.com...


http://edgar.chswebs.com...

I also know in the Civil War the Union loss more life then the CSA.

My opponent asserts that there was ample opportunity for a peaceful resolution, and that is not the case. The Japanese were given an opportunity after Potsdam to surrender unconditionally, and in particular, have the Emperor removed from his throne, as this was seen as a future militaristic source of direction for Japan. Japan rejected this proposal.

If this happens there will be no peace. This was the only way(peacefully). Got anything to back that up without fallacies? Please post.

As always, bad history ignores the context of the time. By 1945 Europe was destroyed, and the European allies were crippled in their ability to contribute to the Pacific theater. Americans had been returning dead for years at this point, and it is very important to understand that the Americans that were killed were largely draftees; this is no small point in trying to understand the context of the time. It is somewhat of a foreign concept for Americans now to think of being drafted and killed in a far off place. 175,000 American men that were involuntarily conscripted into the armed forces of the US were killed

Define.

Irrelevant


...it is clear that it ended the war faster and unconditionally more than any other method that could have been employed.

Back to your objective bit. One good way was to, as I say it "Let the Russians do it.".



innomen

Pro

"However, I'd like to point out that that angle of argument is wholly irrelevant to the resolution: " It was a reasonable decision to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at that time in world history."
The decision to drop the bomb was made by the American president Harry Truman, and what was happening in the Japanese government had only a bearing on that decision only in so far as the limited intelligence on what happened in the Japanese government and military strategists, that reached the president. I submit that the vast bulk of Japanese military planning and internal interactions were not known to the president, and were of secondary consideration to the decision to drop the bomb. The primary consideration was, 'would it effectively end the war', and 'would it end the Americans dying in the war against Japan'." - pro

"I come back to this later." - con

You never actually did come back to this. Considering that it was my foundation in refuting your initial assertion, I will consider this a concession. Your primary argument was based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political decision makers, and I will reassert that such considerations are irrelevant since the decision to drop the bomb, which is what the resolution is based, was made by the American president, and the American president was not privy to the dynamics that went on in the Japanese war machine.


"I'd also like to call into question the source that my opponent used to base his argument. Doug Long who apparently wrote a non published short summary of events, is an obscure Associate Professor at an unremarkable college. Citing him as a reference is pretty weak as a source, and from looking at his assessment of the war, and the dropping of the bomb, it is understandable why he is an Associate Professor." - PRO

"Are you attacking him or his sources? This is irrelevant." - Con



I am critiquing your source as being very weak, and of little authority, and opinion based. For an individual of no great credentials on the subject, to toss out the allegation that this action was done out of "revenge" is in fact baseless for this debate. Your rebuttal offered nothing to change my critique of your source, and other than the dictionary, it's your only source for the basis of your opinion on this debate.


"I also know in the Civil War the Union loss more life then the CSA."

Your citing the American civil war is wholly irrelevant to this debate. Although there were more union deaths than confederate deaths, the objective was still the same, even if it wasn't met. There is no point in citing this interesting fact, just as there was no point in basing your argument against the resolution in the Japanese political/military decision making, when it was an American decision.

"My opponent asserts that there was ample opportunity for a peaceful resolution, and that is not the case. The Japanese were given an opportunity after Potsdam to surrender unconditionally, and in particular, have the Emperor removed from his throne, as this was seen as a future militaristic source of direction for Japan. Japan rejected this proposal." - Pro

"If this happens there will be no peace. This was the only way(peacefully). Got anything to back that up without fallacies? Please post." - Con

The fact that the Japanese military, who were truly in control at the time, rejected the proposal would indicate that their vision of a future, with a military is a fair assessment. What other reason would they reject the proposal.

Again, this is more irrelevance to the resolution, since it was in fact rejected, and from that the American president's perspective he can only make a decision based on the behavior and limited intelligence of the Japanese that he was able to know at the time.


"As always, bad history ignores the context of the time. By 1945 Europe was destroyed, and the European allies were crippled in their ability to contribute to the Pacific theater. Americans had been returning dead for years at this point, and it is very important to understand that the Americans that were killed were largely draftees; this is no small point in trying to understand the context of the time. It is somewhat of a foreign concept for Americans now to think of being drafted and killed in a far off place. 175,000 American men that were involuntarily conscripted into the armed forces of the US were killed" - Pro

Define.

Irrelevant - Con



The point of our military being based on mostly draftees, and the casualties of draftees was an attempt to bring some historical context into the discussion, which would help bring understanding and support to the resolution of it being a reasonable decision to drop the bomb. It is difficult for us to put ourselves into that time, where years of military casualties, young men who just got out of high school, and were involuntarily drafted, were sent to die, and this atmosphere is very difficult for an average American to understand. However, the resolution demands some understanding of the American perspective at this time, and this I say is within the clarity of it being a "reasonable" decision to drop the bomb.

It is indeed bad history to simply cite factual data, and ignore the contextual information that surrounds that data, and to better understand those facts and decisions made.

It is indeed clear that the war was ended quickly after the bomb was dropped and that the objectives of dropping the bomb were met.

As far as "Let the Russians do it", you will need to provide a detailed presentation of what that entails, and what was on the table, you have not done so.

The resolution holds that it was in fact a reasonable decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Debate Round No. 3
CAPLlock

Con

You never actually did come back to this. Considering that it was my foundation in refuting your initial assertion, I will consider this a concession. Your primary argument was based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political decision makers, and I will reassert that such considerations are irrelevant since the decision to drop the bomb, which is what the resolution is based, was made by the American president, and the American president was not privy to the dynamics that went on in the Japanese war machine.

-----I will later in the debate.

-------Which is important, being if we wanted the war to end we could have did it in a peaceful manner that the Japanese do not lose face.


I am critiquing your source as being very weak, and of little authority, and opinion based. For an individual of no great credentials on the subject, to toss out the allegation that this action was done out of "revenge" is in fact baseless for this debate. Your rebuttal offered nothing to change my critique of your source, and other than the dictionary, it's your only source for the basis of your opinion on this debate.


-----This is just a vague red herring. If you seem to SOMETHING, bring it to the table. Even so, you, yourself have no facts to back you up.



Your citing the American civil war is wholly irrelevant to this debate. Although there were more union deaths than confederate deaths, the objective was still the same, even if it wasn't met. There is no point in citing this interesting fact, just as there was no point in basing your argument against the resolution in the Japanese political/military decision making, when it was an American decision.

------Your war to war was wrong; I called you out on that.
What? How do you win a war, when you are not finishing the objective therefore that part is False and NULL.

The fact that the Japanese military, who were truly in control at the time, rejected the proposal would indicate that their vision of a future, with a military is a fair assessment. What other reason would they reject the proposal.

The Japanese talked it around. Even in Japan, the people wanted peace.

There was never unconditional surrender. Japan surrendered on one condition that the emperor's position would be assured. This is irrelevant to topic of determination whether it was a terrorist act or not, but goes to the militarily necessity and justification as it proves Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower were right all along.


2. The act was unethical and illegal, therefore US did have a choice, as anybody has a choice to commit crime or not.

"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.

Before you say it:

Well, of course it was his opinion, after all, he was a general and strategist. I doubt that there were some significant nuances known to us, but not known to Mr. Eisenhower. I also doubt that any of us understand the strategies and details of that time period better than he did.



"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.


The Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quote. Well, that was public statement quoted in The New York Times (6 October 1945) and in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1996) by Gar Alperovitz.


Hm? Legit?


"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 70-71.


"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.


“…as the Potsdam declaration blah blah blah…”
This is called "demands", almost every act of terrorism has those. Still, I fail to understand how content of such demands justifies the act of terrorism.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen purely as a strategic target. But this is a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city.

This is clear violation of international law and war crime, due to deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate attacks, with lack of precautionary measures taken to prevent civilian casualties.

"Let the Russians do it" basiclly mean if all esle fails let the Russians go in and do what they did best.

Check, mate.



innomen

Pro

"You never actually did come back to this. Considering that it was my foundation in refuting your initial assertion, I will consider this a concession. Your primary argument was based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political decision makers, and I will reassert that such considerations are irrelevant since the decision to drop the bomb, which is what the resolution is based, was made by the American president, and the American president was not privy to the dynamics that went on in the Japanese war machine.

-----I will later in the debate." -


"-------Which is important, being if we wanted the war to end we could have did it in a peaceful manner that the Japanese do not lose face."

I'm not sure how this addresses my objection to the primary thrust of your argument being based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political machine. It's a nonsequitor to my contention that your argument is irrelevant to the resolution.


"I am critiquing your source as being very weak, and of little authority, and opinion based. For an individual of no great credentials on the subject, to toss out the allegation that this action was done out of "revenge" is in fact baseless for this debate. Your rebuttal offered nothing to change my critique of your source, and other than the dictionary, it's your only source for the basis of your opinion on this debate. "


"-----This is just a vague red herring. If you seem to SOMETHING, bring it to the table. Even so, you, yourself have no facts to back you up."

It is not, I call into question your priliminary and primary source of information in your initial argument. I maintain that it is a weak source of no authoritative value. You fail to defend the source which further nullifies its value.

"Your citing the American civil war is wholly irrelevant to this debate. Although there were more union deaths than confederate deaths, the objective was still the same, even if it wasn't met. There is no point in citing this interesting fact, just as there was no point in basing your argument against the resolution in the Japanese political/military decision making, when it was an American decision."

"------Your war to war was wrong; I called you out on that.
What? How do you win a war, when you are not finishing the objective therefore that part is False and NULL. "

Um, you win a war when your enemy surrenders. The objective remains to minimize the loss of life and resource in the process.
"No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country". -- George S. Patton

MacArthur never said anything about not dropping the bombs, and Eisenhower never voiced this oppinion to the President:

Professor of history Robert James Maddox wrote that

"Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'


Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?' The best that can be said about Eisenhower's memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time. Notes made by one of Stimson's aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower's part." [1]


"2. The act was unethical and illegal, therefore US did have a choice, as anybody has a choice to commit crime or not."

That's a fairly subjective judgment void of any historical context. War isn't a pretty chess game, it's a bloody awful experience that any country should work to avoid. People die in war, civilians die in war, and in this war the civilian casualties were horrific.

It is important to keep in mind that the firebombing of Tokyo resulted in over 100,000 deaths, and still the Japanese military wasn't broken. [2]

3. Furthermore using atomic weapons was military unnecessary.
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 380,000 dead [3]

It is true that a conventional end of the war could have been considered, but why? Since it is estimated that there was a net benefit to both sides by dropping the bomb, thus ending the war there is great reason for ending it this quickly in this manner.

Since you are fond of quotes:



There were those who considered that the atomic bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas… I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt a position that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives…



You continue to cite a quote by Eisenhower, it's too bad that he never shared those views with the president who was making the decision, and that there is great question about the context of that quote.

Again your quotes are not legit, nor are your sources. You are cutting and pasting from Doug Long who I have already called into question as a dubious source.


It was a reasonable decision to drop the bomb on those cities for the purpose of stopping the war as quickly as it did. The end result of the decision speaks for itself. The country of Japan quickly and completely surrendered after the bomb was dropped, saving a net number of lives already cited. It also caused the country of Japan to adopt a culture of peace, which was a massive change from their centuries old culture of militarism.

As for the Russians. That would be a silly option for the Americans to take, and the result would simply be more deaths had the bomb not been dropped. There is little evidence to support that the military wing of the Japanese would bend. "the dominant militarists insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled." [5]

To assert that it was an unreasonable decision for the Americans to drop the bomb, is to not grasp the context of history in 1945.


The resolution is maintained that it was indeed a reasonable decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


1. Robert, James Maddox (May–June 1995). "The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb". American Heritage. http://www.americanheritage.com....
2. Hanson, Victor Davis (2005-08-05). "60 Years Later: Considering Hiroshima". National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com....
3. Frank, Downfall, p. 135–7.
4. Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945
5. Frank, Richard B. (2005-08-08). "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb". The Weekly Standard










Debate Round No. 4
CAPLlock

Con

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.

The Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quote. Well, that was public statement quoted in The New York Times (6 October 1945) and in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1996) by Gar Alperovitz.

As you can see, I have a WORKING source. Your Maddox website "does not exist".
I cant see it. Is it me?

Again your quotes are not legit, nor are your sources. You are cutting and pasting from Doug Long who I have already called into question as a dubious source.

Thats a bold claim. Dong Long had the sauce. You didnt rebut them.

MacArthur never said anything about not dropping the bombs, and Eisenhower never voiced this oppinion to the President:


"...in [July] 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. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

And before you say it,

http://utopianstates.org...

http://www.opednews.com...



"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

PRO-I'm not sure how this addresses my objection to the primary thrust of your argument being based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political machine. It's a nonsequitor to my contention that your argument is irrelevant to the resolution.

...



William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.




..."When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

"Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.



In fact you forgot about my "Nuke a Small island" bit.
innomen

Pro

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. The Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quote. Well, that was public statement quoted in The New York Times (6 October 1945) and in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1996) by Gar Alperovitz.

As you can see, I have a WORKING source. Your Maddox website "does not exist".I cant see it. Is it me?

Here is the reference in Wiki, my original reference was from a book:http://en.wikipedia.org...

I further maintain that Doug Long possesses no credentials to be used as an authoritative source, but only that of another opinion.

I will be rebutting your last round within the parameters of my conclusion.

1. I assert that your sources are dubious at best, revisionist and fraudulent at worst.
You first use Doug Long as a source, who is only an opinion based associate professor that uses modern subjective moralistic judgments and assessments by saying that it was an act of “revenge”. Although Mr. Long is entitled to his opinion, it is nothing more than that, and it is bad history to cast modern judgments upon a time without any reference to context. It clouds the understanding of why things happen, and sets up a platform for revisionist history.
You further site sources such as UtiopianStates.org, and Opednews.com. Both are self admitted progressive blogs that have no interest or specialty in understanding true history, but rather follow an agenda, and are part of an effort to misunderstand, and misrepresent history.
Again, Mr. Maddox is cited by the History Channel to address this revisionist history on this particular subject:

http://hnn.us...

This article also addresses the actual hoax that has been perpetrated on your point of the Japanese suing for peace. This never happened. It also addresses the point of the Soviet Union as a solution, which is the silliest of all points.
I will admit that there are reams of revisionist history on this subject and other subject emanating from liberal academia. Further confirmation of this revisionist history comes from the master of fraudulent and revisionist history Howard Zinn, who should be held in universal contempt for what he has intentionally done with history. Here is an example of this man’s take on Hiroshima: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com...
So, I not only call your sources and quotes into question, but outright call them fraudulent and worthless.

2. Much of your argument is based on the timeline of events which occurred within the Japanese military and political structure. Since the resolution specifically concerns itself with the decision to drop the bomb, and that decision was made by the American President, such information, which was well guarded from leaving the Japanese camp, was not made available to the President, and is thus irrelevant to the decision to drop the bomb and the resolution of this debate.

3. The decision to drop the bomb was as much of a political decision as it was a military decision, and such considerations would be made solely by the president. As previously cited, the president’s joint chiefs and military advisors never voiced objection, and given the historical context of 1945, six years of world war, and four years of American active involvement in the war; a war where there is an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 civilian casualties each month. These are facts that escape our true ability to identify with, and appreciate. Your implied accusation is that President Truman was acting out of “revenge” or something even worse.

4. Your contention that it was immoral and illegal has no support other than personal opinion. It escapes me that the 100,000 killed in the fire bombings of Tokyo (previously sourced) is somehow moral and legal, but the dropping of an atomic bomb is not. How about the bombing of Dresden, where it is estimated that more people were killed in that bombing than in Hiroshima? Is that somehow moral and legal, but Hiroshima no? [1]

5. On other options. There were a lot of considerations in dropping the bomb on these particular targets. “At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Even some military camps were located nearby, such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defence of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications centre, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without POW-camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority. “ [2]

President Truman made his objective clear ‘in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.’ [3] The intent was to inflict fear, not toward the military who would not be deterred by the devastation, but to the political machine, and the people of Japan. This objective was achieved.


6. The net result was the objective that had been laid out was achieved. Leaflets were dropped and Japanese radio were warned of the danger and advised evacuation, this was 2 days before the bomb was dropped. ‘The instrument of surrender’, or the terms of surrender were: “We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender” were signed September 2, 1945. Most estimations are that the war would continue for 6 more months by most other options proposed, and perhaps much longer for the Japanese troops spread on the Pacific islands. Another net result was a drastic and dramatic change in the Japanese culture, where they went from a highly militaristic and aggressive society, to a culture that has embraced peace, and productive interactions with other countries. It is within the very constitution of Japan that they mandate peace “Article 9. Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes". To this end the article provides that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.” Japan has followed that course of peace as a direct result of the horrific experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I therefore affirm that it was completely a reasonable decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Vote Pro. Also thank you to my opponent for keeping semantics at a minimum.

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
2. http://www.century-of-flight.net...
3. IBID
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Quik 1 year ago
Quik
I can't understand what Con was trying to accomplish with his bolds, highlights and underlines and then never actually making any valid rebuttals against these highlights AT ALL. This was strange. All it did was enhance everything Pro said. It was almost like Con was expecting the readers to just go ahead an draw their own conclusions about what was "supposedly" wrong with those highlights. I'm not sure Con knows what a "debate" is. Con also needs to use that trusty dictionary of his to learn what "fallacious" means. All Con did in his opening argument was cut and paste his source's opening statement.
This was interesting to read because it was like watching Mike Tyson fight an ant. This debate honestly had me thinking that maybe Con and Pro are the same person, and Pro just uses that other account to get a couple easy wins every now and then. I'm not sure how Con walks away from this one with any points at all.
Posted by awesomeness 2 years ago
awesomeness
hi
innomen
Posted by innomen 2 years ago
innomen
Rob, they weren't exactly angels to those they dominated, ask the Chinese. Japanese atrocities are largely ignored by history out of a sort of concession for their allegiance.

Arguments on this can easily go into tangents, keeping it tight to the resolution was important.
Posted by Lasagna 2 years ago
Lasagna
The real issue isn't whether we were justified in attacking them after Pearl Harbor, it was whether we should have been trying to prevent them from building their military up until they finally said "screw it" and attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Most people just assume the Japs were evil and attacked without provocation, which isn't surprising since we were the victors and thus wrote the history.
Posted by Greyparrot 2 years ago
Greyparrot
GJ Innodude
Posted by innomen 2 years ago
innomen
Thanks for that detailed RFD that's very much appreciated, but you mixed up pro and con in your paragraph.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD:

Pro's entire round 2 was from a single source. Con attacked the source as being from an "obscure associate professor" which may have been accurate. The real problem though was that Pro just copied and pasted that professor's entire argument. The fact that the internal working of the Japanese government have nothing to do with the decision to bomb did not help his case. Pro's source was in fact very weak, and Con clearly explained why in round 3. I have looked at pro's source and it was indeed highly opinionated and contained minimal facts.

The contention about the desire for revenge was turned back on Pro by Con who showed that revenge was in fact justified due to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Pro dug himself into a deeper hole in round 3 when he pretty much just quoted large parts of his opponent's argument and for some reason, posted links to a dictionary. He never defended himself against Con's rebuttal that his argument about internal workings of the Japanese government was irrelavant.

Pro's round 4 and round 5 were riddled with irrelevant quotes, and false allegation of logical fallacies his opponent had supposedly committed such as red herring, which along with the copy-pasting loses conduct. By the end of the debate Con's contentions about revenge being justifiable and more importantly that the situation at the time of the war with draftees justified a bombing which the government thought would stop the war stand unrefuted.

I saw no reason not to vote Con on arguments. Sources to Con as well because of the poor choice of sources from Pro. Con did a good job of negating the resolution and pointing out the flaws in his opponent's sources.
Posted by Kethen 2 years ago
Kethen
You do realize the Laws of War were started after WWII right? The League of Nations didn't make laws they tried to stop war all together. Also does anyone else think that we bombed Japan purely to show the rest of the world we are not to be fvcked with. You do realize during WWII the U.S. want looked at as this super powerful unstoppable nation. In WWI they were surprised we did anything. U.S. up until the end of WWII were not considered the strongest nation. I personally feel it was nothing more then a bullied-kid-who-found-a-big-gun syndrome. They totally just wanted to show that we are now the boss, so back the F up. We definitely didn't want Russia doing it because then they would assume they are the Big Macho Men.
Posted by CAPLlock 2 years ago
CAPLlock
The bombs were not in need
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
he's against he's had debates about this before I believe.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
CAPLlockinnomenTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although it got a bit messy towards the end, Pro stated two really good points in round 4 (points 2 and 3) that in my opinion won him the arguments
Vote Placed by googlemabob 2 years ago
googlemabob
CAPLlockinnomenTied
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: The Pro had well-structured arguments, but the Con gave him a good run for his money. All-in-all, though, I feel the Pro had more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by DanT 2 years ago
DanT
CAPLlockinnomenTied
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: Overall better argument. Also the resolution was a bit vague
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
CAPLlockinnomenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments