The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Daltonian
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Lower Tier Finials: Resolved: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings were justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 8 votes the winner is...
Daltonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,069 times Debate No: 65274
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (8)

 

lannan13

Pro

I'd like to thank Daltonian for accepting this debate ahead of time. This is the finials of the Lower Tier for the DDO Tourney.

Rules


Round 1 is for rules and definitions by Pro while Con accepts and/or chooses to define anyword Pro left undefined.
Round 2: Opening arguments shall be presented. There shall be no rebuttles round 2.
Round 3 Reubttles shall be made.
Round 4: Rebuttles and conclusions will be made.
No swearing
No Trolling.
No Semantics.


Atomic Bombings- In August 1945, during the final stage of the Second World War, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people, remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in human history. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)



Justified- Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
Daltonian

Con

I accept.

Good luck to Lannan!
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: It saved Lives

During World War 2, Japan was in national suicide mode to the point that when the US would invade Japan it would have taken over 1 million Americans to do so making the war last a lot longer than it did. (http://thoughtsonmilitaryhistory.wordpress.com...) With Japan in national suicide mode they have proved at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa that they would kill until either they achieved victory or all the Japanese were dead. (http://www.bbc.co.uk...) The Japanese were so intimidated by the US that they threw their own children into the ocean and then themselves committed suicide than rather being captured by the Americans. This occurred at the Battle of Saipan (http://japanfocus.org...)

We can see here that the Japanese would have fought to the last man in Japan and the island of Japan would have been a desolate waste land. It has been estimated that in the early hours of the invasion that the Japanese would take 1,000 causalities per hour. (http://www.kilroywashere.org...) The Japanese were also training their children during recess at this time to carry bombs on them and that when the Americans would come for Operation Downfall, to run under American tanks and blow themselves up. It is obvious here that we have saved Japanese lives.

Operation Downfall has had many estimates. Operation Olympic (invasion of southern Japan) has been estimated a lone would be 1.2 million US casualties. While only 267,000 deaths. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...) Within the first month is was predicted about 31,000 US deaths alone. General Marshal estimated that the Japanese would suffer 10 million causalities.

After the 2 atom bombs, Japan still was not going to surrender as the Kyujo Incident occurred afterwards. This was when the Japanese military attempted to overthrow the Japanese Emperor in order to prevent him from surrendering. This Coups was stopped due to a US aerial bombing that day killed most of the Coup leaders and stopped the Coup from occurring. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

We also tried to warn Japan as we dropped leaflets that were in Japanese that had warned the Japanese of such an attack, but they ignored it. http://www.authentichistory.com...)( Also imagine if the US told the Japanese government that, "Hey look at the Tokyo bay and we'll drop our new super awesome weapon." We drop it and nothing happens. This would only make the Japanese fight harder as they would be calling our bluff

Contention 2: The Cold War

It is known that we were developing the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project to the point where it took $2 billion to complete (http://www.ushistory.org... ). Let's look at some interesting stats. For one second let's imagine the US did not use the bomb, but still the won the war. We had the atomic bomb and so did Russia. The Cold War began and due to the fact that we did not know what the bomb did we would have been more likely to use it on Russia or another communist satellite state during the Cold War causing Nuclear War.

Today nuclear weapons are stronger than they are back then and we currently have Neutron Bombs, which military leaders prefer, because its radiation penetrates even the deepest bunkers, but it comes with a price. Dr. Chalko has found that the radiation penetration from the neutron bombs will cause the Earth’s Interior to increase temperature substantially, increase volcanic activity, and even in the most extreme chances it may cause the world to explode. (http://sci-e-research.com...)

Contention 3: Japanese War Crimes.

Many people tend to look at Japan with sympathy after the Atomic Bombings, but they do not remember all of the horrible things that the Japanese did. They had violated several international treaties like the Briand-Kellogg Pact by invading Japan. They have also forced anywhere from 4-10 million people to work for the Japanese military. We all know that NAZI Germany killed 6 million Jews along with 30 million Russians, but what are the Japanese numbers you may ask? They killed a total of 30 million Asians (excluding Chinese) and they killed 23 million Chinese. (http://www.lrb.co.uk...) They have also violated the 1907 Hague Convention which outlawed the attacking of neutral states during wartime by their attack on the United States. The Japanese have also done torturing to the POWs, Japanese Army Office Uno Shintaro who served in China during the War said this on torture:

“The major means of getting intelligence was to extract information by interrogating prisoners. Torture was an unavoidable necessity. Murdering and burying them follows naturally. You do it so you won't be found out. I believed and acted this way because I was convinced of what I was doing. We carried out our duty as instructed by our masters. We did it for the sake of our country. From our filial obligation to our ancestors. On the battlefield, we never really considered the Chinese humans. When you're winning, the losers look really miserable. We concluded that the Yamato race [i.e., Japanese] was superior.” (Haruko Taya Cook & Theodore F. Cook, Japan at War 1993 ISBN 1-56584-039-9, p. 153)

Out of the many Massacres and atrocities that the Japanese committed the Rape of Nanking (also known as the Nanking Massacre) where over 300,000 people were killed and the women were raped. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) They also had a contest of who could kill 100 Chinese by sword contest which drove the death toll up even more and not to mention that they would play caught the baby with their Baqunents.

Caption reads: "Incredible Record' (in the Contest to Cut Down 100 People) —Mukai 106 – 105 Noda—Both 2nd Lieutenants Go Into Extra Innings."



Daltonian

Con

Thanks to my opponent for instigating. In this round, I will provide only contentions and reserve any and all rebuttals for the consecutive round. Since Pro has the bulk of the BOP, I will keep my contentions more minimalist than my rebuttals.

Good luck!

===========

C1. The bombings targeted Japanese civilians rather than martial forces

Modern estimates place the number of Japanese citizens killed as a result of the bombings as being anywhere between 129,000 - 246,000; the former generally accepted as only encompassing direct deaths whilst the latter encompasses deaths as a result of factors like radiation poisoning.

Of the hundreds of thousands killed, fewer than 5% were individuals associated with the Japanese Military or Administrative Regime. [1]

In most cases involving civilian casualties in war, the death of the civilians are collateral damage and unintentional. In this case, however, the United States government made the active choice to bomb Japanese cities rather than military bases. Specifically targeting civilians when other options are available is near very generally accepted as being an international taboo on moral grounds.

Rather than choosing to bomb a military base or crucial interval for communication amongst Japanese Military Forces that could have just as equally prompted a Japanese Surrender, the US government chose to bomb cities filled with women, children, and civilians - civilians who vastly did not have the Democratic Right to challenge the actions of the Japanese Government at the time.

Why would an American government motivated only by the idea of conserving life and insuring peace choose to target civilians, rather than even crucial infrastructure that could render the Japanese equally or more incompetent? The only possible answer to this paradox is that the motivations of the American government consisted of an agenda that included making political statements to the Russians.



All in all, alternative targets were available that could have lessened civilian losses. Unless my opponent is prepared to contest that intentionally choosing to kill civilians rather than military targets is justifiable, these factors render the bombings equally unjustifiable.

C2. Using the bomb was inhumane and immoral

Of the hundreds of thousands living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time of the bombing, some were lucky enough to be painlessly vaporized by the deathly force of the Atomic Bomb - other innocent civilians were not so.

Of the as many as 246,000 killed (this is a conservative estimate, as it only accounts for the immediate dead), as few as 1/4 of the deaths were imminent (60,000) [2] - by four days after the bombing, fewer than 1/3 of the total casualties had yet to perish [3], and the vast majority of those who did perish before day 4 were alive to experience amounts of pain. The rest of those lost in the bombings are widely attributed as having suffered through the consequences of radiation and burning associated with dropping the bomb. Survivors describe the scene as having been chaotic and filled with misery, with the goriest of the deaths occurring in the 24-48 hours after the bombing. [4]





(pictured: Top - An orphaned Japanese Child crying; Bottom - A dying Japanese child suffering from the effects of Nuclear Warfare)

In addition to causing painful deaths for civilians - whom again were innocent, non-combatants and persons unable to officially contest the actions of their government - the bombings also cause permanent and painful defects amongst survivors. Defects still exist in Japanese children being born today [5]. Due to inherited radiation poisoning from ancestors, influxes in Japanese infants being born with unseen defects are occurring in the thousands. This equivalates to hundreds of thousands forced to cope with crippling and painful defects as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The United States government and the Chemical Weapons Convention currently register the usage of Chemical Weapons in warfare as being outlawed on humanitarian grounds. The usage of these weapons are not permitted as they can be proven as causing excessive and unnecessary suffering, alongside having an almost inevitable potential of affecting civilians.

By the same logic that the usage of these weapons are not permitted, why is the usage of Atomics bombs that cause equal if not greater extents of suffering morally permissible? Much like other targets existed as per arguments in C1, other methods of bombing the Japanese that did not include horrendous and extremely painful medical consequences associated with radiation were available. The inhumanity in forcing not only innocent people, but generations of Japanese to undergo suffering for better economic capacity and as punishment for the actions of their superiors is unjustified.


C3. The decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not made by the right people, supported by the majority of American military experts even at the time, or done for the right reasons

Whilst the majority of American Military experts in 1944 supported the use of the Atomic Bomb to scare Japan into surrendering quicker, an extremely minimalist portion of scientific and martial experts supported dropping it on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. [7]

".. 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’"

- Dwight Eisenhower, then Supreme Commander of Allied forces [8]

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon 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."

- Admiral William Leahy, Chief and highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949 [9]

"…. 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."

- General Douglas MacArthur of the US Military [10]

"The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

- General Curtis LeMay [11]

Experts from foreign nations agreed with the sentiment of American Generals, as General Sir Hasting Ismay of the United Kingdom advised Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the time, [11]

when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

As the above illustrates, and countless more quotes too vast to fit into this argument (yet still made visible via my source), most members of the US military who had intimate dealings within operations against and negotiations (prior to the cutoff of communication) with Japan dissented the opinion that the bombings were justified. Who could know the mental state of the Japanese from an American perspective better than the people who had been tasked with combating them?

Sir Hasting Ismay was accurate in his summarization that the Japanese wished to surrender. Many, if not most, historians attribute Japan's reluctance to surrender as being associated with the US's forcing the dethronement of the Emperor upon the people - this indicates an unwillingness to compromise for peace on the behalf of the US.

Those who were responsible for making key decisions concerning the bombings proved incompetent, and the reasoning that played with the lives of civilians concerned factors as irrelevant as whether or not senior US military officials would be able to vacation in Kyoto if it was to be bombed over Hiroshima. [12]

======

** Note - Due to time constraints that I have clarified with Lannan, formal arguments concerning whether or not Japan was close to surrender prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be provided in the next round in the form of a rebuttal. This does not mean that I do not contest that Japan was not on the brink of surrender, as they were.

Thanks Lannan, on to you!

Sources
[1] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[2] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[3] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[4] - The account of Sumiteru Taniguchi
[5] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[6] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[7] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[8] - Eisenhower, Dwight. Mandate for Change, 1953-1956: The White House Years, A Personal Account; Page 380
[9] - D. Leahy, William. I Was There. (Page 441)
[10] - Cousins, Norman. The Pathology of Power (Page 65; 70-71)
[11] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[12] - In next round
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: Bombing Japan focused on Civilians.

Hiroshima

After the Potsdam Declaration Japan was preparing for the Invasion of Japan. In Hiroshima was the Headquarters of Field Marshal Hata, head of the 2nd General Army of Japan which housed over 400,000 troops along with the 59th Army, 5th Division, 224th Division, and the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division. At the time of the bombing there was a total of 340,000 civilians in the city along with the troops stationed there. (Goldstein, Donald; Dillon, Katherine V; Wenger, J Michael (1995). Rain of Ruin: a Photographic History of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Washington, D.C.: Brassey's. ISBN 1-57488-033-0. OCLC 31969557) Hiroshima was also a logistics and supply base for the military. After the bombing the Japanese were not considering any type of surrender until the Russians entered the war, but the Minister of War Anami prepared to impose Martial Law over the Empire of Japan in order to prevent anyone from even attempting to surrender. (Goldstein, Donald; Dillon, Katherine V; Wenger, J Michael (1995). Rain of Ruin: a Photographic History of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Washington, D.C.: Brassey's page 288-289).


Nagasaki

In Nagasaki there was approximately 10,000 soldiers in Nagasaki and the city was the largest seaport in southern Japan. This was because of the 90% of the population there, population of 263,000, was in war producing industries of ship building and munitions. The original target was cloud covered so the second target at Nagasaki was aimed for and was bombed. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...) A choice to attack Nagasaki would be the equivalence of Pittsburg or even Detroit being bombed for that reason in order to knock out the industry and when a nation no longer has the means to make war they must end the war or face total annihilation. Much like during the early days of the United States when the military was disbanded the US was wide open for an attack until President Adams re-established the Army. When a nation has no defense it can easily prime another nation to take it over and in World War 2 the US stripping the Japanese of their war making ability would mean that the millions of lives primed for Operation Downfall would be saved on both sides. Before the war the one nation that the public wanted war with was the Japanese based on their massacres and destruction that they had commenced, not Germany.

People were unsure if the atomic bomb would actually work on Hiroshima which is one of the reason that the US didn't drop it into Tokyo Bay and watch the destruction, because the Trinity bomb had gone off with wires and hoases attatched all over. We had no idea if it would work and if we made the Japanese watch then the bomb doesn't work we can see that the Japanese would have had a major confidence boost.



I do wish that my opponent state which alternatives would have worked better.

Contention 2: Using the Bomb was inhumane and immoral.

When faced in the invasion of Japan the Operation Downfall the world population would have been devastated as the Japanese were primed to fight for every person and were consistent. Towards the end of the War the Japanese were strapping their children with bombs and teaching them during recess to crawl under American tanks and blow themselves up. This Operation would have also had been a Conquest since Japan would be a lifeless void when this commenced. It was predicted that in the early stages of the war that 1,000 Americans and Japanese would die every hour. The USSR would have been likely to invade northern Japan due to their interests there. You could have easily seen Japan divided today much like Germany was or even Korea is now. This adds to the Cold War theory that I have brought up last round and a US-Russian War in Japan could have been easily seen as the frontline battle ground of Capitalism vs. Communism. Japan would also be armed with Poison Gas and Bacterial Warfare. The War would be fought with a US Civil War strategy known as the Prairie Dog War. Which is when land is fought for yard by yard and is focused at the underground tactics of the Japanese, not to mention that the Japanese had mobilized its civilian population. (http://today.duke.edu... ) You see the Japanese had mobilized their civilians and were thus considered combatants due to their readiness for war. So truly the US killed not one civilian until after the birth defects of modern day Japanese civilians. We can also see that by dropping the bomb we saved more lives then we cost.


Contention 3: The Decision

We seemed suddenly to have become possessed of a merciful abridgement of the slaughter in the Far East… To bring the war to an end, to avoid indefinite butchery, to give peace to the world, to lay a healing hand upon its people by a manifestation of overwhelming power at the cost of a few explosions, seemed, after all our toils and perils, a miracle of deliverance.”

-Winston Churchill on the atomic bombing

“…We have used it to shorten the agony of war, in order to save thousands and thousands of Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan’s capacity to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us.”

- President Truman on using the bomb.

For Americans, it is the dollar that is the moving spirit. They cannot win.”

-Italian Petty Officer in Japan before the dropping of the bomb.

Despite the best that has been done by everyone, the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage… In order to avoid further bloodshed, perhaps even the total extermination of human civilization, we shall have to endure the unendurable, to suffer the insufferable.”

- Emporer Hiroshito

(http://schoolworkhelper.net...)

We can see that the above quotes easily fit into this argument that the atomic bomb must have been dropped and with the quote by the Itialian Petty Office we can see that Japan wouldn't surrender, but it wasn't until afterwards that they were ready to accept the defeat and acknowledge that the War would bring nothing , but tradgedy.


Daltonian

Con

LC1: It saved Lives

Rebuttals:

R1A) Simply dropping the bomb(s) on a different target could have saved more lives

For my opponent's contentions here to be considered ultimately valid, he would have to justify that the Japanese people were in some sort of suicidal trance that could be only be uninvoked by the direct bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not realistic or particularly feasible.

Whilst it is true that Japan has an immense history of pride and a culture more arguably associated with suicide and warring commitment, it cannot and has not been upheld by my opponent that in order for the Japanese to surrender, they needed to physically see the lives of hundreds of their citizens be terminated. There is no evidence to show that the Japanese were beyond basic reason. If they were capable of so effectively and intellectually organizing against an American Insurgency, what reasoning prevents them making the conncection of their impending defeat under the same logic if the atomic bomb were to be demonstrated?

Dropping the bomb on a small military island or in semi-desolate Japanese territory could accomplish the task that my opponent alleges to necessitate the surrender of the Japanese. The obvious immediate rebuttal to this claim is that a demonstration would have no effect on the Japanese as they did not surrender after Hiroshima, but this fails to take a variety of factors into account, most notably that only three days time elapsed between the bombing of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki, which would lean to alleging that the Americans cares less for allowing the obviously Japanese to develop towards Peace on their own terms than for demonstrating their bomb on civilians to threaten the Russians. [1]

Parts of the Potsdam Declaration and the Demand for Japanese Surrender also called for an "irrevocable" alteration of Japanese Culture, particularly concerning their emperor, as outlined below. The Japanese not surrendering after Hiroshima is equivalent to a scenario where Portland, USA is bombed and the bomber demands the forfeiture of the constitution from the rest of the United States. Would surrender be finalized within 3 days in this scenario? Obviously not - this scenario is comparable to the situation of the Japanese.

Thus, if we use the affirmative stance's own logic that atomic bombing is the lone route possible for dissuading the Japanese, then a clear representation of as much and a granting of a more feasibly reasonable time period likely would have prompted a Japanese surrender without mass casualty.

R1B) Japan's surrender was possible, if not probable

As I began to elaborate in C1A above, Japanese reluctance to surrender is a difficult concept to be definitively justified, especially since my opponent attributes this reluctance as being attributable to what is essentially alleged "suicidal brainlessness" on their part.


Part of the Unconditional Demand of Surrender issued by the Americans would have, by extension, forfeited the powers of the Emperor Hirohito. [2] During the time period in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place, the power and position of the emperor played a major role in the functioning of Japanese society, and the Emperor would predictably be reluctant to [to his interpretation] resign all of his power under the Potsdam Declaration.

It can be argue(d) that more clearly allowing the Emperor Hirohito to retain his status as partial/figurehead emperor in the Potsdam Declaration could have been a very simplistic fix to the war.

Obviously, having been partially responsible for the actions of Japan in World War 2, allowing him to continually rule to the extent of power that he had during the war would be unfeasible. Oddly enough, even American Military Generals realized this.

Secretary of State Joseph Grew, wrote to President Truman [3],
Every evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne, indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne comprise irreducible Japanese terms...They are prepared for prolonged resistance if it be the intention of the United Nations to try the present emperor as a war criminal or to abolish the imperial institution...Failure on our part to clarify our intentions in this regard..will insure prolongation of the war and cost a large number of human lives.
Secretary of War Stimson at the time wrote [3]




"During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender. Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for."
The emperor of Japan was revered as near godly culturally by the Japanese, in an almost similar fashion to the Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt. It was widely accepted by high ranking US officials that clarifying this term of the Potsdam Declaration (see below) to include the the fact that the Emperor would not be removed or culturally abolished could have enticed the Japanese surrender.






      • There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.





It can be easily misinterpreted even today by educated Americans that this part of the Potsdam Declaration could mandate the forfeiture or even trial of Emperor Hirohito as monarch of Japan. In reality, the Americans fully intended to refrain from inflicting harm upon the emperor and even would permit him to continue his reign until his death in 1989. [4]

Had President Truman heeded the advice of his military advisers and clarified in the terms that the Emperor would retain his dignity as figurehead, it is very likely that the predictions of top US officials may have came true and Japan would have surrendered knowing their emperor and culture would be respected, especially considering that the Japanese people had actively elected pro-peace politicians as seen in R1C.


R1C) The Japanese wanted peace more than not
In his arguments, my opponent asserts that the broader Japanese population did not want peace and instead sought violence. He is mislead in surmising this. The majority of his sentiment originates from American Propaganda that villainized the Japanese during WW2.

In fact, the Japanese population that my opponent asserts were hungry for violence elected Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki in April 1945. His campaign consisted to a very vast extent of advocating for a peaceful end to the war. [5] All signs indicate that the majority of the Japanese were building towards advocating a peaceful resolution to the war, but American impatience costed lives.




LC2. The Cold War
This contention is avoided if R1A is valid. The major pretense that this argument falsely assumes is that, in order to successfully demonstrate the potential of the Atomic Bomb, it must be actually dropped on a city of civilians. Why? There is no justification given for asserting that the Russians, as much as the Japanese, would lack the basic function to interpret that the use of the atomic bomb assured mass death.

LC3: Japanese War Crimes.

In this argument, my opponent adopts the assertion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified because military regiments associated with Japan had commited atrocious acts in the past. In doing so, he is quite literally adopting the psychology that "two wrongs make in a right" in the form of the assertion that "one atrocious act justifies a second" As illustrated in my original contentions, the cruel and painful side effects of being exposed to the bombings around Hiroshima and Nagasaki are near equivalent to what would be considered a modern day war crime had anyone but the US committed it. In addendum, if the bombings were about punishing the Japanese for war crimes, it is unproven that any of the citizens even approved of the actions, making my opponent's assertion even more unjustified.

Rebuttal:

= COUNTER REBUTTALS =
.. will be posted in my conclusion due to character limits. Lannan will counter-rebut my points and my final counterrebuttals will be in my last round.

Sources
[1] - (http://tinyurl.com...)

[2] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[3] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[4] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
[5] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

Contention R1A) simply dropping the bombs on different targets could have saved more lives.

My opponent claims that dropping the atom bomb on a Japanese military island would have had the same affect if they were to have dropped the bomb on a civilian target, but this is false when it came to their military as they viewed their own military as expendable were they really valued pilots, but when I gave you the example in an earlier round of Saipan where the Japanese fought to the last man and their women and children on the island committed suicide even though the Marines attempted to save them. The Japanese pride would have had them continued fighting even though they were completely dominated and this was from the European Nations allowing them a form of appeasement that rivaled that of only Hitler.

One thing that the bombings also helped with was the silencing of the Kyoto incident where the Japanese were attempting to overthrow the empower. If this assassination would have been completed then the Atomic bombings would have continued on Japan and the next scheduled bombing was on the 18th of August and the bombing of Japan into submission would have continued with the same effects of that of Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam. Con also dropped this argument so I’ll extend the defeating of the Kyujo incident across the board.

The US government would not permit the forfeiture of the US constitution for the entire US and the we would likely see a reaction similar to Bush’s War on Terror to exterminate the bomber and the rest of his gang. As for Japan, I showed in the last round that the Japanese Security of War initiated martial law over the nation to prevent anyone from surrendering after the bombing of Hiroshima forcing the US to launch the second atomic bomb. Plus after the first bombing the Japanese came to the Japanese press and told them that the Japanese would ignore the Allied surrender demands and continue fighting. (Scoenberger, Walter (1969). Decision of Destiny. Columbus: Ohio University Press. pp. 248–249)

Also my opponent drops my argument of the US dropping leaflet warnings to the people of Hiroshima that the US is planning on dropping the Atom Bomb. As a matter of fact the US dropped 65 million leaflets warning the Japanese of this attack months before detonation. (http://www.authentichistory.com...)


Warning LeafletWarning Leaflet



Contention R1B: Japan’s Surrender was possible, if not probable.

On August 7th, one day after the bombing on Hiroshima, the Japanese cabinet meet and even though Emperor Hirohito wanted the war to end the cabinet stood at disagreement with a 3-3 debate lock and they missed 3 key military leaders for the okay for the surrender. The military leaders disagreed that the bomb was of atomic nature and didn’t want to consider surrender. Emperor Hirohito conjured up another emergency meeting on the 9th of August and they agreed that the Americans didn’t have the ability to create another atomic bomb, and then Nagasaki happened. Emperor Hirohito then made a surprise appearance and broke the 3-3 tie since it required an animous decision for surrender. Hirohito said this to the cabinet:

“I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer.”

As you can see that the atomic bombs caused the Japanese Emperor to act and urge the cabinet for surrender and if it wasn’t for the atomic bombings the Japanese would not have surrender without the speech and forced second meeting called by Emperor Hirohito. In the 1947 edition of Harper’s, former Secretary of War Stimson had seemingly changed his views on the bombings then what Con has stated when he stated:

All the evidence I have seen indicates that the controlling factor in the final Japanese decision to accept our terms of surrender was the atomic bomb.”

On June 1st the US Scientific Panel wrote the following:

Mr. Byrnes recommended, and the Committee agreed, that the Secretary of War should be advised that, while recognizing that the final selection of the target was essentially a military decision, the present view of the Committee was that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers’ homes; and that it be used without prior warning.”

However the US did give the Japanese warning, as stated before, with the leaflets warning the Japanese of the bombing that would occur. Truman, who had just inherited the war from FDR, was advised by military, scientists, and political to drop the bomb and to end the war.

R1C is addresed in this point.

Contention LC2: Cold War

My opponent forgets that the US did happen to drop an atomic bomb in a desolate location. The Trinity Bomb was detonated in the US and with this test of power no nation in the world flinched at it’s awe. (http://olive-drab.com...) My opponent also drops my argument last round of Japan being devided into North and South Japan much like Korea and Germany and the Cold War would have intensified due to the Soviet’s Communism and the Japanese anti-communistic views, hence the Anti-Communist Pact between NAZI Germany and Japan.

Contention LC3: Japanese War Crimes.

Though I agree for the most part that it’s not civilized, but with the American “Eye for an Eye” type philosophy the US public and much of the world had found it justifiabled for the Japanese War Crimes from the Rape of Manking to the Baatan Death March to the butchering of American POWs. This was even seen when Truman made the announcement of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima by him saying that the Japanese have been paid back many fold showing that he himself was supporting such philosophy and seemingly Overman theory. (http://www.authentichistory.com...)


Remember Pearl Harbor Tin Sign


Daltonian

Con

Final Counterrebuttals

First and foremost, I apologize for the formatting errors in the previous round with my quotes and hope they do not make the debate difficult to read. The quotes looked more presentable in "preview" mode.

Secondly and most importantly, the majority of facts cited in this article are reiterations of what I've said in previous, just clarified to rebut my opponent's contentions. Thus, look to above sections for many sources.

FC1 - Mindset of Japanese civilians, the justification for targeting them, and the need for the bomb

Here, I will rebut pieces of my opponent's rebuttal(s) one by one.

"My opponent claims that dropping the atom bomb on a Japanese military island would have had the same affect if they were to have dropped the bomb on a civilian target, but this is false when it came to their military as they viewed their own military as expendable were they really valued pilots, but when I gave you the example in an earlier round of Saipan where the Japanese fought to the last man and their women and children on the island committed suicide even though the Marines attempted to save them."

Assuming the bomb worked (which I will cover momentarily), there is no feasible reason not to assume the Japanese would have the basic function to deduce that the technology of a bomb of that caliber of destruction being in the hands of the Americans would assure their defeat.

My opponent, in his arguments, alleges that the Japanese having a culture of suicide prevents them from seeing any/all forms of reason; even if it may be plainly obvious. Whilst it is indeed true that cultural variations largely associated with pursuing suicide as an honourable death existed in Japan, this does not totally invalidate their desire to live or function with the motivation of human emotion and intellect rather than blind military ideals.

If the Japanese, with the proper technology, were able to successfully survey the power of the bomb, why would they need to actually phsyically witness the obliteration of two of their cities if they could fully aniticipate the effects of the bomb and had the foreknowledge to understand the power of the atomic bomb thanks to the practice test?

What my opponent is asserting:
P1. The Japanese had a culture of pursuing suicide rather than surrender
P2. The Japanese would physically need to experience the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of their citizens, rather than just realize such mass killing was possible
P3.The bombings were necessary to assure surrender, and thus justified

There is obviously a large jump between P2 and P3 that remains extremely hard to justify on his part.


"One thing that the bombings also helped with was the silencing of the Kyoto incident where the Japanese were attempting to overthrow the empower. If this assassination would have been completed then the Atomic bombings would have continued on Japan and the next scheduled bombing was on the 18th of August and the bombing of Japan into submission would have continued with the same effects.."

My opponent has not proven that the living status of the emperor absolutely mandated Japan's surrender, so this argument is irrelevant. As he has even said, negotiations were occurring concerning the surrender of Japan amongst officials and towards the end of the war, the majority of Japanese citizens supported surrender via the election of pro-peace Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki (see above), who helped write the terms of surrender of Emperor Hirohito. Unless Japanese Military officials were unwilling to allow any forms of democracy to continue in Japan as they had culturally for centuries, there would always be a persona present to assure Japanese surrender for the simple reason that the vast majority of Japanese society desired a peaceful resolution to the conflict: as my opponent even states, Japanese Military leaders only forced the nation into surrender via petty things like assassination and tied council votes - dropping atomic bombs on cities is the only way to eliminate three generals in a nation itching for peace?

Had the United States decided to pursue routes of demonstrations that could have granted figures like Emperor Hirohito, the Emperor's successor, Prime Minister Suzuki, or any other elected Prime Minister the leverage to effectively force a surrender, the need for the bombings may not have occurred.

Also my opponent drops my argument of the US dropping leaflet warnings to the people of Hiroshima that the US is planning on dropping the Atom Bomb. As a matter of fact the US dropped 65 million leaflets warning the Japanese of this attack months before detonation.

My opponent renders this argument irrelevant in his own logic. If the reason Japan was not surrendering was attributable to three military generals holding up the system who could allegedly only be convinced by witnessing the physical bombings kill people, how would this have made a difference in Japan's surrender?

The facts concerning this domain of the debate are clear: innocent citizens comprised the majority of casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and other than allegations of unproven brainlessness on the part of the Japanese, there is no reason why their deaths could not have been avoided.

FC2 - Inhumanity of the bomb

I will address my opponent's rebuttal from Round 3 here. In my initial contentions, I make various arguments about how the usage of an atomic bomb in warfare is inhumane akin to how the usage of chemical weapons are inhumane.

My opponent responds by saying that going to inhumane measures are justifiable if more lives are saved - and is essentially arguing utilitarianism. This is an arguable claim in itself, but luckily in this circumstance, debating upon it's legitimacy as a concept is unnecessary.

My opponent's argument consists of the assertion that "1000 Japanese/Americans would die every hour" (an assertion still based upon the reasoning that the Japanese would fight till the last woman and child). If FC1 is valid, however, then this argument is irrelevant as Lannan is assuming that, since I do not advocate the Atomic Bombing of Japan, I must advocate it's invasion instead. This is untrue. Under the plan(s) I proposed - allowing time for Japan to reach it's own decision, more demonstrations closer to Japan, and clarifying the fundamentals of the flawed Potsdam declaration - did not include rates of 1000 wartime deaths per hour, but rather a number closer to zero per hour in a peaceful resolution.

The USSR would likely not have invaded Japan if they had already surrendered to the USA or if the USA prioritized diplomatic coordination with the Russians rather than bombing countries to make statements to their enemies - which brings me to my next counterrebuttal.

Killing the Japanese and harming their citizens was not the only alternative to the Atomic Bombings. The majority of Japanese citizens died slowly and painfully from already inhumane methods of radiation and exposure - but also without proper medical treatment, relief, or human dignity. [1] Therefore, whilst all alternatives proposed in FC1 are rendered valid, not only was the bombing inhumane at it's core, but utilitarianism cannot be argued to justify war crimes.

FC3 - President Truman, Political Factors, and James Byrnes

My opponent, in an effort to convey that US officials at the time were pro-bombing, cited the opinions of President Truman and one James Byrnes. US officials who had consistent and in depth negotiations with the Japanese at the time (like Ralph Bard, advised President Truman with opposing standpoints offered to him by Senator Byrnes. Byrnes, unlike the rest of the military council who (as illustrated above), were largely opposed to the bombing on the grounds that it was unnecessary. What exactly that opposing counsel was that motivated the then President Truman to pursue bombing activities in Japan has come to the in depth analysis of historians. Many propose [2] that President Truman cared more about political grief than saving lives simply due to the fact that he employed Byrnes, a political strategist, as his primary advisor rather than negotiators. [3]

In addition, rather than an effort to "save the poor Japanese", many historians now agree that the goal of the bombing was to establish American interest in Japan fast enough as to totally expel all Soviet Interest and intimidate the Soviets at the cost of Japanese lives. [3]

Conclusion
My opponent, whilst making arguably misguided assertions about the Japanese mindset during WW2, has failed to justify why both the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki particularly were necessary to force a Japanese Surrender and that potential saving of life justifies dishing out relentless pain to innocents. He has practically conceded LC3.

For these reasons and all those expressed in my contentions, rebuttals, and counterrebuttals, VOTE CON.

[1] - (http://tinyurl.com...)

[2] - (http://tinyurl.com...)

[3] - (http://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
You're actually the first person I've ever blocked on DDO in 3 years; I just figure if you consider me the worst voter on DDO then we don't really have anything to say to one another. If you think that poorly of my voting then frankly you come across as someone who makes stupidly careless accusations without concern for making factual claims, dishonestly attacking anyone who disagrees with your points of view by exaggeration. Frankly that kind of rash immaturity isn't worth my time, so yes, I did block you. You've offered no rationale for that claim or any evidence of a logical thought process with such hyperbole.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
Blocked me...what a joke.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
I'm sorry, but that's just pathetic.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
I looked at one link. Congrats: you voted for the guy who didn't forfeit.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
I doubt that 1h similarly votes for those they disagree with. I on the other hand do vote for positions I disagree with if the debater presented a clearly better case.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Actually I am one of the only voters I've seen who is consistently willing to vote for those I disagree with if they made clearly better arguments. It's very rare I see someone who votes against the position they agree with. Again, I found that comment highly offensive and ridiculously moronic.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
And I personally take offense to the claim I am a bad voter, I think that is an idiotic and immature comment. On a number of occasions recently I have voted for those with whom I personally disagreed, because despite my disliking their positions I could recognize they had won the debate. Had I recognized a clearly superior argument from Con I would have voted for them just as I have for others I disagreed with. In my opinion Pro had the better arguments and made the arguments and rebuttals they needed to make to win the debate.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Ultimately people can be considered accessories to murder by not resisting or stopping another who is doing wrong. Pro by firmly establishing the evils of the Japanese government, and that the Battle of Saipan showed that civilians had been themselves complicit in their government's actions, going so far as to die rather than surrender, placed serious question marks about the ethics of a Japanese people who would live in the chief cities of a government slaughtering tens of millions. I did not feel Con sufficiently established that Japanese civilians were innocent rather than accessories to murder; or that they would not have just committed suicide like they did in the Battle of Saipan.

Con's argument on the subject was

"My opponent, in his arguments, alleges that the Japanese having a culture of suicide prevents them from seeing any/all forms of reason; even if it may be plainly obvious. Whilst it is indeed true that cultural variations largely associated with pursuing suicide as an honourable death existed in Japan, this does not totally invalidate their desire to live or function with the motivation of human emotion and intellect rather than blind military ideals. If the Japanese, with the proper technology, were able to successfully survey the power of the bomb, why would they need to actually phsyically witness the obliteration of two of their cities if they could fully aniticipate the effects of the bomb and had the foreknowledge to understand the power of the atomic bomb thanks to the practice test?"

However, Pro pointed out the Trinity Bomb and leaflets had been dropped to give just such warning beforehand. It also seemed strange that Con was arguing for blaming the U.S. for killing those who were killing others, when the atom bombs killed about as much as the Rape of Nanking alone, let alone the numerous other Japanese massacres. In other words, why blame the U.S. and not also Japan when Japan killed more? It came across as a double standard.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Well I can think of worse voters on DDO, but I'm not going to name names.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
In my completely honest opinion, Jzyehoshua is the single worst voter on DDO.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
lannan13DaltonianTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: (Changed vote) -Grammar for Con because Pro misspelled the word "Reubttles" -Con rebutted the last statement that convinced me well(in my last vote), and I agree with him ultimately.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
lannan13DaltonianTied
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: Well, for me, the basis of this debate relied on the cost of innocent lives versus what it took to end the war. Pro showed it was an effective way to end the war, but con countered and showed it was not the most peaceful and best way to end the war. Basically, con won the debate due to his point of innocent lives. It is unjust to take an innocent life, let alone thousands of them. Pro failed to uphold his BoP and show that the bombings were the best way to end the war (and thus justified,) while con met his BoP by showing the bombs were not the best way to end the war (and thus not justified, if innocent lives were took.) Good debate by both.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
lannan13DaltonianTied
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: Con shows that dropping the bombs was not, in actuality, necessary to end the war. That means that the losses of life engendered by the bombings was wanton and unjustified. That is sufficient for me to cast a ballot in Con's favor.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lannan13DaltonianTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con showed that there were more peaceful and better ways to resolve the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings. Good try lannan, good try. I knew this was tough for you.
Vote Placed by joepbr 2 years ago
joepbr
lannan13DaltonianTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This sentence sums up what convinced me to vote for Con: "For my opponent's contentions here to be considered ultimately valid, he would have to justify that the Japanese people were in some sort of suicidal trance that could be only be uninvoked by the direct bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not realistic or particularly feasible." Basically, Pro's argument is that the Japanese were so irrational that the only way to deal with them were by killing hundreds of thousands of people, Con is very successful in showing that the Japanese were not only perfectly rational, but also were willing to surrender if the Americans let them keep the emperor. With that Con showed that it was entirely possible for the Japanese to surrender without the atomic bombings, and therefore they weren't justified.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
lannan13DaltonianTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a very simple decision--I'm not forced to make the tough choice between nuclear bombing and invasion because Con gives me other options and because Con cast enough doubt upon the necessity of the bombs to end the war to carry the day--if I'm *unsure* about the *only* potent justification given for dropping the bombs, I vote Con. Moreover, Con explained how much of the Japanese animus to surrender stemmed from a reluctance to give up their society and culture as represented by the emperor to the Americans in an unconditional surrender. Pro has a mountain to climb to prove that mass murder of civilians is justified when the party dropping the bomb did not make an effort to resolve the issue another, more peaceful way.
Vote Placed by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
lannan13DaltonianTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
lannan13DaltonianTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I saw a lot of bad spelling and grammar mistakes from Pro, but Pro made the more convincing arguments in my opinion by contrasting Japanese atrocities with those committed by Nazi Germany, focusing on the kamikaze nature of a Japanese people reluctant to surrender, mentioning leaflets dropped beforehand to warn civilians, and emphasizing that the bombings ultimately saved lives. I'm still not sure who is the better debater, but Pro had the superior position and used that fact to full effect. Kudos to both for an excellent debate.