The Instigator
Connor666
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
TheRomanticist
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Nuclear Bombs were necessary to be used on Japan in WW2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Connor666
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,336 times Debate No: 18798
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

Connor666

Pro

This round is only for acceptance.

The use of nuclear bombs on Japan in WW2 were completely necessary. First of all if we did not use the bomb the war would have continued therefore leading to the death of more Americans. It seemed to not matter to the Japanese when they participated in Pearl Harbor. Or perhaps the rape of Nanking. If we did not end the war we the bombs the war would have continued leading to kill more Americans as well as the Japanese. And then after what they did in Pearl Harbor some of them have the ordasity to say that the bombs were inhumane. And sure it killed innocent people, but didnt they kill innocent people in Pearl Harbor and also The rape of Nanking?The idea that those bombs were inhumane was absurd. The rape of Nanking IS considered the forgotten holocaust for a reason. The atrocities they committed when invading China were unforgettable. Furthermore i believe that the bombs were completely necessary. I mind you this is just the introduction to my arguement while i have much more to add after extensive research on the subject I promise you i will be a worthy opponet.
TheRomanticist

Con

Accepted. As the debate topic only requires me to prove that there were alternatives, I will go ahead and list them.

1) Blockading
2) Gas attacks
3) Invasion
4)Diplomacy

The top 3 answers may have proven crueler than the atom bomb, but they were options, meaning the A-bomb was not neccesary. I will be focusing on the fourth, seeing as not only does it prove that nukes were not neccesary, but also that they might not have been the best option.

Japan was willing to surrender, meaning the bombs were unneccesary. They knew the war was lost, and would have only asked for the safety of the emperor. It's argued that even they did not surrender right away, they would the moment Soviets landed on their soil.

Source:http://www.mtholyoke.edu...;

Even if this were not the case, diplomacy would have had potential. They knew we had the bombs, and it would have looked admirable if we were still willing to go the route of peace after being attacked, especially since we had fully in our power the strength to get our revenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Connor666

Pro

Obviously I have won the argument because I am not asking if there were alternatives rather I was asking if it was necessary and I believe invasion would have killed alt more Japanese as well as Americans diplomacy was not an option because the Japanese were actually not willing to surrender rather they were actually doing the contrary. They were actually building up a better defense ruling out your ideas of blockading and invasion. Now for the gas attacks. Gas attacks were not only inhumane but another reason they were banned was because the harmful gas actually would drift back to the people who ordered them in the first place, And an obvious reason was the Geneva Protocol in 1925 banning use of chemical weapons which included gas attacks. Finally diplomacy was not possible because the Japanese were going to continue fighting and it was even quoted by a Japanese Officer on the site below

http://www.takeonit.com...

The things on that site prove your idea that they were willing to surrender wrong.
TheRomanticist

Con

Please note you could do beter than a source from an open forum. The source you gave even lists my argument twice!

Dwight D. Eisenhower claimed that the Japanese were prepared to surrender. The U.S. Chief of Staff noted that no war can be won by killing innocent women and children. We were lucky the Japanese were such an intelligent country, any other would have turned to blind revenge.

http://www.takeonit.com...

Alternatives prove that the bomb was not necessary. Justified, maybe, but that does not make it necessary by any means.

The quote you gave about how the Japanese man Yokohama does not back your claim that diplomacy was not an option. Diplomacy is not neccisarily asking for a surrender, it is asking for a truce, which would be refraining from war. As to the quote, I looked up its origin. It was a bit quote in an American newspaper, something not quite as credible as if it were in a Japanese newspaper. This one newspaper may have looked for the proudest officer before interviewing him. And as one officer alone, his testimony would not be enough.

As for the gas argument, if we were willing to use a atom bomb, I doubt we would have heeded a gas treaty if would have been the most effective method.

Can you provide proof that Japan was building up there defenses? And I do believe you can set a barricade around a defense, as well as invade by air.


Debate Round No. 2
Connor666

Pro

If Japan was building up it's defenses that would include Anti aircraft guns making a invasion by air almost impossible. And when you say blockading I assume you mean blockading by the Navy. Considering the attack on Pearl Harbor that decimated the US Navy very badly making blockading a almost impossible solution to the war.
Now for the diplomatic solutions you suggested their is almost no way to know if they were going to consider surrendering or creating a truce. Its because it happened in the past we wont know. They could have been ready to fight to the death while now looking back on it they may have said they would have surrendered possibly to make the US look like the bad guys.

And about your statement saying that we are lucky that the Japanese were so intelligent to not blindly attack us with revenge. Well if they are so intelligent why did they blindly attack Pearl Harbor? And also they could not blindly take revenge because after the war their entire military was decimated. They barely have a military to this day. I've decided the idea that they would have surrendered or not a irrelevant detail because it has too man y opinions and points of view to actually determine whether or not they would have surrendered or made a truce. And proof that they were building up their defenses is none other than...Operation Downfall.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.ww2pacific.com...

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

I hope this is enough proof that the Japanese were in fact building up their defenses to prepare for an invasion from the Allies
TheRomanticist

Con

I do love how you use unbiased sources, it allows me to pick up information to support my side.

"Considering the attack on Pearl Harbor that decimated the US Navy very badly making blockading [an] almost impossible solution to the war."

The US Navy was still more than willing to form a blockade. I find it hard to believe that they would volunteer for something they weren't capable of. The plans for Operation Olympic, the invasion plan, called for 24 battleships and 400 destroyers, so it would be fair to say that America had plenty of navy power left. The Navy was still arguing for a blockade, which leads me to believe that the defenses the Japanese were building up was not enough to remove the option from the table. Operation Olympic would have taken place had it not been for the nuke, so it was possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Its because it happened in the past we wont know."

You should still provide speculative information to support. That is all you really can do in a historical debate. The fact that they might have been willing to fight to the death should not be an excuse for killing so many innocent people. The fact is, after the fact, it was easy to say we had no other option, what reason did we have to bring up the alternatives?

"if they are so intelligent why did they blindly attack Pearl Harbor?"

I was looking for a better word. They weren't a vengeful nation. As to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the cause was a US embargo with Japan, as America was where Japan recieved its supplies. Since Japan lost its primary resource provider, they were forced to plan an attack on America that would weaken us long enough to conquer the Dutch East Indies. It was not an act of vengence, but an act of neccesity, see how that works both ways? Does that mean if they had nukes they should have been allowed to use them on us?

"They barely have a military to this day."

Anyone can build up a military, but they chose what was important. They were not vengeful so they did not use the attacks as an excuse to form a large military to counter.

"And proof that they were building up their defenses is none other than...Operation Downfall."

If Operation Downfall was cancelled before the nuclear option was chosen, this would be more satisfying proof. The fact is that Operation Downfall was not deterred by any defenses the Japanese set up.

"I've decided the idea that they would have surrendered or not a irrelevant detail because it has too many opinions and points of view to actually determine whether or not they would have surrendered or made a truce."

Then you accept the fact that diplomacy was a possible alternative.

The last point I would like to make, is that even if there was no other solution than the nuclear option, which I believe there was, there was no need to use bombs when a single bomb would have sufficient. The threat of the bomb without even dropping the first one could have been enough, and I find it hard to believe that if we dropped the first one, they would not have felt at least a little intimidated. One bomb would have been more than enough to cause the surrender of an already defeated nation.




Debate Round No. 3
Connor666

Pro

Connor666 forfeited this round.
TheRomanticist

Con

That's a shame. Please extend my arguments and don't forget to vote!
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
If we invaded japan many many more lives would have been taken. it goes the same with gas attacks.
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
and by saying votebomb you show you are a sore loser.......
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
His account is no longer active......
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
Although I will say good debate.
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
I am sorry for my absence on the last round unfortunatley I could not access the computer.
Posted by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
Nice votebomb.
Posted by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
You have 9 hours left to post, hope you aren't forfeiting the final round.
Posted by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
Make those points in the actual debate.
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
Oh and for your comment about Japan being so intelligent. They could not get revenge because we basically destroyed their military. And they were so smart when they blindly attacked Pearl Harbor right?
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
You realize if they are building up their defenses that means putting in anti aircraft guns making invasion from air impossible, and when you say blockade you are talking blockading from Navy yes? The Japan had a Navy while ours was badly hurt (Pearl Harbor) and it would be very hard to actually succesfully blockade them
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Connor666TheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a strong advantage in this debate.
Vote Placed by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Connor666TheRomanticistTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con do to forfeit