The Instigator
AloofPatriarchy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Alli_son
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should America have dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 509 times Debate No: 45945
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

AloofPatriarchy

Pro

America was justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we had to hand in hand combat with Japan, the only thing that would happen is people would die on both sides. The Japanese would keep fighting and fighting, resulting in our surrender and therefore giving them the green light to imperialize.
The bombing was also necessary because Japan had attacked us first, with pathetic, childish reasons, even after we stated we were not going to get involved in the war. We nuked them as a threat to them to never get involved with us or destroy our fleets. That was the only way we could scare them without losing hundreds of thousands of people.
Alli_son

Con

The bombing of a highly populated area of Nagasaki Japan was not necessary. The lives lost at Pearl Harbor were 2,400 compared to the 400,000 lives lost due to the atomic bombing. We should have found some other way to get back at them instead of slaughtering 166 times more people. Japan would have surrendered, if the U.S. wasn"t so impatient. Japan was just almost convinced to surrender, but we decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill many civilians. The Japanese had no choice but to surrender. This was not militarily necessary, because rather than waiting for the word of surrender from Japan, we exceed their hatefulness on the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore we dropped the bomb on a highly populated area most of its victims were civilians, not soldiers, and Hiroshima itself had few targets of military value. We in retrospect should have aimed at a higher military consecrated area. Instead of killing innocent people who probably weren't apart of Pearl Harbor bombing.
Debate Round No. 1
AloofPatriarchy

Pro

Since the Japanese are stubborn, if we had gone hand in hand combat with them, they wouldn't ever stop fighting or give in. People would just keep dying on both sides and the war would go on and on until we would eventually had to have given in. So, we needed a way to scare them into not attacking us again. So we nuked them, causing less deaths than it would have if we had gone to hand in hand combat with them, and portrayed the message to not mess with the Americans. Most Japanese people do still follow the samurai way of never giving up.
We had done nothing to provoke them, unless you count our cutting off trade with Japan, limiting their oil supply. Japan already killed over 2,000 people in the Pearl Harbor bombings. That was also reasonable, as they were rapidly conquering the Indian Ocean and wanted to take the Pacific too.
It was either drop the bombs, kill a few thousand people or not drop the bomb, the war lingers on and more people die than the bombs what the bombs killed. Neither country could afford any more warring on the other, this was a costly expense. True we killed innocent people, but if we didn't more would have died at the hands of the Japanese and of the Americans. The bombs not only made sense, they saved lives.
Alli_son

Con

Alli_son forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AloofPatriarchy

Pro

AloofPatriarchy forfeited this round.
Alli_son

Con

Alli_son forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AloofPatriarchy

Pro

AloofPatriarchy forfeited this round.
Alli_son

Con

Alli_son forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AloofPatriarchy

Pro

AloofPatriarchy forfeited this round.
Alli_son

Con

Alli_son forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
If this interests anyone, I had a debate on a similar topic:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by ElCoyote 3 years ago
ElCoyote
Finally some one who does agree thank you Jonbonbon :) I wanted to debate about this topic but the person who accepted my debate is not exatly debating me
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Is today national "talk about nuclear weapons day?" If so I want in... But not against ElCoyote because I agree with him XD
Posted by ElCoyote 3 years ago
ElCoyote
Japan would not have surrenedered the Japanses belief is Death over Submission, and the lives lost in the atomic bombing combing is about 150,000 lives compared to the estimated 1,214,000 lives lost if we would have invaded mainland Japan
No votes have been placed for this debate.