The Bombing of Japan was the best option

I accept.

I intend to fully dispute all of Pro's arguments and show that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were neither the best nor the most efficient methods available to end WWII.

I look forward to your opening arguments.

1. Immediate End -- Not so Immediate

My opponent argues that the use of the atomic bomb forced Japan to surrender in under a week. This isn't actually what happened at all. Japan refused unconditional surrender because they wanted to keep their emperor. After the first bombing they still refused unconditional surrender. Already it's clear that this wasn't an immediate end. After the second bombing they still refused unconditional surrender and so the USA granted them their condition of keeping their emperor. Therefore, the bombings didn't really force Japan to do anything other than that which they were already willing to do before the bombings. The war would have ended even earlier had America decided to grant them their condition initially. The argument is negated.

2. The Bombings Resulted in Less Deaths -- A False Dichotomy

My opponent is either ignorant of the actual circumstances of Japan's surrender or he is deliberately leaving out facts integral to the situation. Japan did not refuse to surrender, they actually agreed to accept the Potsdam declaration, just not completely without condition [1]. Their only real condition was to keep their emperor. Japan actually wanted to surrender. Consider this quote from Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō;

"With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace..." [2]

Clearly Japan was no longer interested in warring. All they wanted was surrender negotiations followed by the end of the war.

Before continuing, it should be pointed out that Pro stating that 90,000-166,000 Japanese died isn't entirely correct. This only takes into account the Bombing of Hiroshima. Nagasaki added another 60-80 thousand deaths [3].

Moving on to my opponent's main argument in this point, he states that bombing Japan saved the lives of American soldiers/Japanese soldiers and civilians that would have surely died had a main-land invasion taken place. This is a false dichotomy. There were other options. Firstly, let's consider the finalized terms of Japan's surrender. Japan was allowed to keep its emperor, but the emperor was to be subject to allied forces.
This begs the question, why wasn't this option brought up initially as a response to Japan's counter offer? In fact, why weren't there any surrender negotiations at all? The Potsdam declaration was released, calling for Japan's unconditional surrender, Japan agreed to surrender but wanted to keep their emperor, so the U.S. went straight to atomizing 200,000 Japanese civilians (there were some soldiers admittedly)? That sounds more like the actions of someone looking for an excuse to test a weapon, not someone actually interested in peace.
Japan wasn't even made aware of the A-bomb's existence. Surely if we had at least shown video of a test bombing to the Japanese, they would reconsider their position on the matter, but by bombing them so hastily America had unwittingly assured that Japan could not back down from their proposed conditions.
Consider the implications of agreeing to unconditional surrender after the first bombing. It would send the message to the Japanese public that the people who died in Hiroshima had died for nothing. By bombing Japan a second time, we only strengthened their resolve.

Perhaps Japan would not have surrendered unconditionally even if America had warned them about the A-bomb. That's a different matter. If we had given Japan fair warning and they had said, "bring it!" THEN Pro might have an argument here, but that's not what happened, so he doesn't. The argument is negated.

Civilian Deaths were Unavoidable -- Because Nobody Tried to Avoid Them

Once again, Japan did NOT have absolute resistance to losing the war. Even Eisenhower recognized this fact by saying;

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." [4]

Japan agreed to surrender so long as they could keep their emperor as I've already shown. The typical justification for bombing Japan is that invading them would result in more deaths, but the truth of the matter is no deaths had to happen whatsoever. All that was needed was surrender negotiations, followed by the end of the war. The only refusal to Japan's counter-offer given was the A-bomb. This is an absurd level to jump to. Does Pro contend that Japan's desire to keep their emperor was worth atomizing roughly 200,000 Japanese civilians? Not to mention all those who died later as a result of the mass radiation the spread throughout Japan?

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that civilian deaths were unavoidable when the only alternative even considered to the A-bombs also involved civilian deaths. The argument is negated.

4. Soviets Needed to be Fended off -- What!??

My opponent claims that the bombing was justified because the resulting loss of soldiers caused by an invasion of Japan would have made us easier for Russia to attack and because America wanted to keep Stalin out of the Pacific war. This doesn't make any sense at all when you consider that Russia had signed an agreement with America for Russia to join the Pacific war and invade Japan once Russia's neutrality pact with Japan expired. In fact this agreement allowed Russia to take control over several of Japan's islands, many of which Russia still controls today [5]. Also, Stalin had already known about the A-bombs existence long before the Japan bombings. Truman even made it a point to drop hints about their new super-weapon to Stalin during the Potsdam Conference. [6]

There's really nothing else to say here; The argument is negated.

5. The Other Options Were Even More Brutal -- But Not This One

My opponent argues that a blockade would have been more cruel than bombing them. This is clearly not the case. A blockade is a long-term strategy that allows plenty of time for the blocked off country to reconsider its position. Enacting a blockade would only result in as many deaths as the Japanese government allowed. In this way it is far more likely that less people would have died, but even if more people would have died, it would have been the fault of Japan's own government, thereby relieving America of the blame. Therefore, by handing over control of how badly Japan is punished over to the Japanese, America would have both exercised far more compassion and reason by enacting a blockade, rather than simply blowing Japan's cities to bits. However, enacting a blockade wasn't even necessary. America could have threatened to blockade Japan if they refuse to back down from their condition and then if Japan had still refused a blockade could be put in place. Then it would be justified, but not before that point. Some sort of discourse was needed for any military action on America's part to be justified, let alone using the atomic bomb twice.
The argument is negated.

Conclusion

Japan was clearly willing to surrender. It's not unreasonable by any means whatsoever to actually sit down with them and discuss the conditions of their surrender, but it is unreasonable to immediately jump to nuking 200,000 Japanese civilians, or any other alternative my opponent has mentioned thus far as a response to their counter-offer to the Potsdam declaration. The Japanese desire to keep their emperor is not valid justification to atomize 200,000 Japanese civilians, nor is atomizing 200,000 Japanese civilians an effective method of solving this problem as history has proven.

I look forward to your response.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.doug-long.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Extending my arguments

My opponent has forfeited the debate. I extend my arguments and urge the voters to vote con.