The Instigator
Xer
Pro (for)
Tied
29 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Tied
29 Points

The U.S. should have used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in Japan.

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 9 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 21,143 times Debate No: 8512
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (9)

 

Xer

Pro

I am for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I will have to prove that the atomic bombings were the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan to win the debate. My opponent will be against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and will have to prove that the atomic bombings were not the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan, and will have to prove a more viable option to win the debate.

---Definitions---
should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki - were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

end World War II in Japan - The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a close.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

World War II - was a global military conflict which involved a majority of the world's nations, including all of the great powers, organized into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

To my opponent: just accept the debate in the first round. Do not make any arguments until the second round. Please accept or offer new definitions before starting the debate. Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate.
mongeese

Con

I accept my opponent's definitions and such and such. Thank you and good luck, Nags.
Debate Round No. 1
Xer

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate mongeese, and good luck to you as well.

The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was by far the most effective way of bringing World War II to an end. Japan's history and their actions in the war have shown that Japan and its people would fight to the very end. The only other real alternative to bringing the war to an end in Japan was a mass invasion of Japan that would most likely have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives. The U.S. brought the war to a quick end by using the atomic bomb against Japan.

The atomic bomb eliminated the need for America to invade the Japanese mainland most likely saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. President Harry Truman's military advisors put the estimates at American lives lost between 50,000 and 100,000 in only the first 30 days. Later, Truman himself estimated about 500,000 would be lost. And Winston Churchill estimated that the atomic bomb saved 1 million Allied troops. After the atomic bomb was dropped, Truman stated, "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans." (1) (2)

The death toll of the Japanese civilians and soldiers would have been higher as well if the U.S. decided to invade the Japanese mainland instead of dropping the atomic bomb. The firebombings already being used by the U.S. were causing a great amount of damage. There were already 600,000 Germans and 200,000 Japanese dead due to Allied air raids. The naval blockade of Japan was also causing starvation. If the U.S. then invaded Japan, hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of Japanese lives would have been lost knowing that they would fight to the last man. The atomic bombing of Japan also brought quicker release to the unjust imprisonment of the Japanese in internment camps in America. (3)

The atomic bombing was also important because of the need to stop the growing influence that the Soviet Union was gaining in the region. If the US had invaded Japan instead dropping the atomic bomb, the Soviet Union would have became much more involved in the war. They had already Manchuria. And since the Soviet Union had joined in on the war against Japan, they would have had a large say in the partitioning of Japan's defeated territories, which would have increased the Soviet's sphere of influence even more. Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." (1) The use of the atomic bomb against Japan also showed the strength of the U.S. to the world, and especially the Soviet Union. (4)

---Sources---
(1) http://www.trumanlibrary.org...
(2) http://www.carnegieendowment.org...
(3) http://www.freerepublic.com...
(4) http://worldwariihistory.info...
mongeese

Con

My opponent has defended his arguments very well. I don't have anything to say to directly refute his arguments. In fact, his contentions support two of my options. Rather, I will now present some arguments for more viable options, as this was what I was set to do in Round 1.

But first, a definition of a rather important word for this debate, that was used three times in the first paragraph: viable.

Viable - having a reasonable chance of succeeding (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Something that is most viable, it would seem, would have the highest chance of succeeding.

Here is a course of action that would have guaranteed the end of World War II in Japan: withdrawal.
No fighting was occurring on U.S. soil. Japan was on the brink of defeat. If the U.S. offered to withdraw all troops from Japan, and forget that the war ever occurred, Japan would have loved the opportunity to forget the war that had been going so miserably for them.
From (http://en.wikipedia.org...):
"They confirmed earlier agreements about Germany, and reiterated the demand for unconditional surrender by Japan, specifically stating that 'the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.'"
Japan ultimately had no hope in victory, and they were fighting for a draw. If the U.S. agreed to simply call the war a draw, and bring out a peace treaty, Japan would have readily accepted. However, the Allies instead demanded unconditional surrender, which really wasn't necessary.
http://www.shsu.edu...
"Also note continued Japanese determination to avoid surrender, hoping Americans would tire of the casualties and retreat."
The Japanese didn't want to surrender. A peace treaty that was equal on both sides, with neither sides surrendering, but instead agreeing to a truce, would have had a higher chance of success in ending a war than two bombs.
Therefore, a more viable option would have been to offer Japan the chance at a conditional surrender, which would have terminated the fighting immediately, with no cities blown up. It would show the U.S. to be a merciful nation, that doesn't unnecessarily blow things up.

Another more viable option: blow up Tokyo.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Tokyo is the capital of Japan.
The Japanese government was located in Tokyo.
If the government was blown up, then Japan would no longer have a governing body to participate in the war.
If Japan cannot participate in WWII, then WWII is ended in Japan.
This plan ultimately couldn't fail, and it would show the U.S. to be capable of ridding an entire country of its government.

And yet another option: blow up all of Japan over time.
http://www.sino.net...
If we had a group of planes flying over Japan, we could have one of them drop a bomb on the northern tip of the northern island. We then call up the Japanese gov't and tell them what we've done, and give them a chance at surrender. An hour later, another plane drops a bomb just west of Sapporo. We inform them of this attack. If they still don't surrender, we drop a bomb halfway between the northern coast of the largest island and Tokyo. At this point, it is obvious: the next bomb will drop on Tokyo, and there isn't anything they can do about it. If they continue to refuse, we blow up all of Japan. This plan ends WWII in Japan in about three hours, which is a short time compared to the nine days after Hiroshima that it took for Japan to surrender. This would show the U.S. to have absolute strength.

So, in conclusion, all three of my above options are more viable than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thank you for your quick response; I look forward to your next one.
Debate Round No. 2
Xer

Pro

First off, mongeese has committed a major rule violation. I clearly stated in the 1st round, "Please accept or offer new definitions before starting the debate." The debate starts in round 1, mongeese offered a new definition in round 2. Mongeese should undoubtedly lose the conduct vote because of this. Also, I do not agree with the definition; therefore, I will offer a new definition; mongeese can not debate this definition, it is what it is.
viable - capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"In fact, his contentions support two of my options."
-What contentions support your opinions? You never stated which of my contentions supported two of your options.

"Here is a course of action that would have guaranteed the end of World War II in Japan: withdrawal...."
-This is not a viable option. This option is not "capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are." To end the War, the U.S. had to win the war. Why would the U.S. spend all the time, men, money, and resources fighting Japan only to call it a draw? This is not viable. This option completely contradicts my 4th point (about Russia) in the 2nd round. Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated." If the U.S. withdrew, then the U.S.S.R. would have surely invaded Japan. When they invaded and conquered Japan, they would have a large say in the partitioning of Japan's defeated territories, which would have increased the Soviet's sphere of influence even more.

"Another more viable option: blow up Tokyo...."
-The U.S. already had blown up Tokyo. But to no avail. "The bombing of Tokyo by the United States Army Air Forces took place at several times during the Pacific campaigns of World War II and included the most destructive bombing raid in history." The most destructive bombing raid in history stands out to me. If Tokyo already had been the most destructively bombed place in history, then how could it be bombed any more? The Japanese obviously were not going to surrender due to Tokyo being "blown up". (1)

***B-29 missions against Tokyo***
-19 February 1945: 119 B-29s hit port and urban area
-25 February 1945: 174 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~28,000 buildings
-4 March 1945: 159 B-29s hit urban area
-10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000 civilians
-2 April 1945: >100 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory
-3 April 1945: 68 B-29s bomb the Koizumi aircraft factory and urban areas in Tokyo
-7 April 1945: 101 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory.
-13 April 1945: 327 B-29s bomb the arsenal area
-15 April 1945: 109 B-29s hit urban area
-24 May 1945: 520 B-29s bomb urban-industrial area south of the Imperial Palace
-26 May 1945: 464 B-29s bomb urban area immediately south of the Imperial Palace
-20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb (bomb with same ballistics as nuclear bomb) through overcast aiming at -but missing the Imperial Palace
-8 August 1945: ~60 B-29s bomb the aircraft factory and arsenal
-10 August 1945: 70 B-29s bomb the arsenal complex

"If the government was blown up, then Japan would no longer have a governing body to participate in the war."
-As can clearly be seen, the U.S. tried many times but without avail to bomb the Imperial Palace. And saying that Japan would not have a governing body to participate in the war is like saying the U.S. would not be able to participate in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without Washington D.C. Also, if the Emperor was killed because of the bombing the Japanese would have never gave up. They have a deep history of respect for their Emperor, and if their Emperor had died, they would also have fought to the death no matter what.

"And yet another option: blow up all of Japan over time...."
-The U.S. already were bombing Japan everyday. The Japanese got bombings, air raids, and firebombings for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Japan had proven that they were not giving in to conventional bombings, the atomic bomb needed to be used against them. (2)
***Air raids against Japan***
-Doolittle Raid: attack by 16 USAAF B-25 Mitchells in April 1942
-US air raids on Iwo Jima, Minami Torishima, the Kurils and other outlying islands
-Operation Matterhorn: B-29 air attacks from bases in China, beginning in June 1944
-Carrier air raids on Taiwan and Okinawa
-Land-based bomber raids on Taiwan
-Frequent B-29 air attacks from bases on Saipan and Tinian against major metropolitan areas, including the major bombing campaign against Tokyo
-US and British Pacific Fleet air strikes against the Ryukyu Islands
-Tactical operations by US Navy aircraft against Kyūshū, Shikoku, Honshū and Hokkaidō
-US night raids against Japanese cities
-Soviet air attacks against Japanese forces in Kuriles, Chosen and Kantogun during August-November 1945. (3)

All of my opponent's options have been proven to not be viable. My opponent practically conceded the debate himself, "My opponent has defended his arguments very well. I don't have anything to say to directly refute his arguments." So, obviously, all of my points stand as my opponent supports them. By my count, I am winning this debate 4-0. Also, my opponent should lose the conduct vote because of his major rule violation. The resolution is affirmed with my opponent's approval "The U.S. should have used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in Japan." Vote Pro.

---Sources---
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.worldwar2database.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
mongeese

Con

"First off, mongeese has committed a major rule violation..."
Well, I was expecting that you would define "viable" in Round 2. You did not. At that point, a definition for viable was needed, as it was what the argument revolved around. I could not debate without a definition for "viable," and you didn't give me one. It was too late to offer the definition before accepting the debate, because I had already accepted the debate, and I didn't need a definition for "viable" until my arguments in Round 2. This is a Catch-22. When there's nothing that a debater can do besides break a rule, the rule needs to be broken. Plain and simple. I could not debate without a definition for "viable." Losing the conduct point to a Catch-22 is, in itself, a Catch-22.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)

"Also, I do not agree with the definition..."
Well, my opponent has introduced a definition in the last round of the debate. This presents me with yet another catch-22: I have to introduce a new plan that fits this new definition of viable, and yet I'm not supposed to introduce new contentions in the last round of a debate.

"To end the War, the U.S. had to win the war..."
Not necessarily. The U.S. was perfectly capable of withdrawing all troops from Japan. Therefore, it was viable. It also would have ended the war in Japan. It doesn't have to be a particularly smart option; it only has to be viable. People can do things that they are not willing to do. Ultimately, my opponent does not effectively point out why withdrawing could not be done; he only pointed out why it should not have been done. There is a difference. We were perfectly capable of withdrawing our troops with circumstances as they were. The fact that we didn't want to do it, and decided that we shouldn't do it, is ultimately irrelevant.
This option was viable because the U.S. had complete control of its troops, and could have easily commanded them to return home. This supports the definition of "viable."

By blowing up Tokyo, I don't mean just dropping bombs on it and making random parts explode. I mean dropping the atom bomb on Tokyo, rather than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this way, your contentions do support my plan, as it is essentially the same positive effect, but it only involves blowing up one city.
The point you make about the Emperor is a strong one. However, it introduces a new plan. We could have dropped four bombs all at once that surrounded the Imperial Palace, but wouldn't have a blast radius large enough to actually hit the Imperial Palace. This way, the Emperor and his government could see first-hand the effects of an atomic bomb, and the Emperor would very quickly realize that Japan was doomed if the war continued, and he would immediately surrender. Cheers.

Finally, blowing up all of Japan would have been instant success. If, all at one time, we dropped one atom bomb on every major city in Japan, there would be no more soldiers to fight the war, no more equipment to run the war, and no more government to oversee the war. The war would be over in Japan. This is better than blowing up only two cities, because we wouldn't have to bother waiting for a surrender; there would be no more Japanese to surrender!

Now, take a look at all of my opponent's contentions. He says that the bombing ended the war. He says that the bombing saved lives of Americans. He says that the bombing saved lives of the Japanese. He says that the bombing showed America to be a powerful nation. However, none of his contentions show how viable the bombings really were. None of them. At all. He talks about how great it was, and why we should have done it, but he does not relate it at all to how capable we were of doing it. From what my opponent says, for all we know, we may have barely been capable of actually getting the atom bombs on site in time. The Manhattan Project may have barely been financed by the government.

From my opponent's first round:
"I will have to prove that the atomic bombings were the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan to win the debate."
He didn't prove this. At all. He said nothing about the viability of the bombings. Nothing.

"My opponent... will have to prove that the atomic bombings were not the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan, and will have to prove a more viable option to win the debate."
I have done this. I have shown that the most viable option was to withdraw all troops from Japan. For this debate, it doesn't really matter how smart the option was, or whether we should actually use the option; this debate is about viability. In that case, I win.

"By my count, I am winning this debate 4-0."
That's funny; I thought of it as 4-0 in my favor. Three points because you failed to do what you said you had to do, one point for using improper grammar ("whoever," not "whomever"), and one point for setting up your opponent with two Catch-22s.

"Also, my opponent should lose the conduct vote because of his major rule violation."
Last I checked, setting people up with Catch-22s isn't very good conduct.

"The resolution is affirmed..."
Actually, according to Round 1, this debate isn't about affirming or negating the resolution. My opponent already laid out how this debate is won or lost.
"I am for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I will have to prove that the atomic bombings were the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan to win the debate. My opponent will be against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and will have to prove that the atomic bombings were not the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan, and will have to prove a more viable option to win the debate."
This is not a resolution debate. This is over the most viable option, as outlined in Round 1. Because you failed to do what you had to do, and I did what I had to do, I am the clear winner of this debate.

"Vote Pro."
Nope. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Good man, mongeese.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"Arguments: CON (the definition of viable allows for all things to work... CON showed how his were viable, and PRO showed how his should have been used... but the PRO clarified that viability was the value to be judged... then defined 'most viability' as easiest to be done then what should have been done... and CON showed that his options were easier to do... and quicker... very close debate)"

No, he should have lost.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
How was this a tie?
Pro won by far.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Ah hah!
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
It's a sign of NO LIFE syndrome.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
You see, mongeese debates the debate topic in the debate rounds, then debates about the debate in the comments. It's all rather rediculous.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I brought a lot of people onto the website... that's why there are so many from Spring, TX

Conduct: (Catch-22s and telling ME how to vote) CON
Arguments: CON (the definition of viable allows for all things to work... CON showed how his were viable, and PRO showed how his should have been used... but the PRO clarified that viability was the value to be judged... then defined 'most viability' as easiest to be done then what should have been done... and CON showed that his options were easier to do... and quicker... very close debate)
Grammar: Tie
Sources: PRO (12-6)
Posted by shadeofgrey 7 years ago
shadeofgrey
That's also true :) we all know each other ... not that I'm taking one person's side over another ... just saying
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Another person from Spring, Texas? Wow, is there like a debate(dot)org club at your school or something?

Nonetheless, I agree with shadeofgrey, we need to chill and stop freaking out because the debate is over. I rest my case.
Posted by shadeofgrey 7 years ago
shadeofgrey
Haha true. The debate is over. You guys need to chill. No freaking out. ok?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
XermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
XermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
XermongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:24 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
XermongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:24 
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
XermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by acer 7 years ago
acer
XermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
XermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
XermongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
XermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05