The Instigator
seraine
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The United States should have used atomic weapons on Japan.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 10 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,413 times Debate No: 16403
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (10)

 

seraine

Pro

The first round will be acceptance.

This is not about the choice of cities to bomb, but about whether or not the United States should have used atomic weapons on Japan.

Thank you, and I look forward to our upcoming debate.
LaissezFaire

Con

As Pro requested, I'll use this round just for acceptance. Good luck, Pro--I look forward to reading your next round.
Debate Round No. 1
seraine

Pro

Without further ado, here is my argument.

1.It was the best option.

The bombing of Japan was the best option, as all the other options wouldn't do much to end the war.

1a.It was a lot better than a invasion of Japan.

In the invasion of Okinawa (which has 1,199 square kilometers[1]) had about 38,000 wounded Americans, 12,000 dead or missing Americans, over 107,000 Japanese soldiers killed, and anywhere from 40,000-100,000 civilian deaths[2]. The civilian deaths alone were from � to � of the combined deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on one small island[3]! Japan's 4 major islands alone have about 375,000 square kilometers[4], and Tokyo alone has over 27 times the population of Okinawa.[4][5] It is obvious from this that an invasion of Japan would have many more casualties than from the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1b. The Japanese would not surrender.

As you can see by simply looking at Operation Ketsugo, the Japanese were not willing to surrender. Instead of surrendering, they were planning an all-out defence. They were literally giving every thing they had into their attack, arming all able civilians with swords and bows, and sending almost all of their planes on kamikaze attacks, hoping to cause so many casualties that the United States would negotiate an armistice.[6] That is not the sign of an enemy willing to surrender.

Not only that, but they had been firebombed relentlessly at a rate of about 6 cities a day. The devastation was so bad that one General estimated that they would run out of targets by December 1945. Worst of all, perhaps, was the fact that the Japanese couldn't do anything about it. And all of this was going on simultaneously with Operation Starvation, which had left only 11 out of Japan's 47 supply routes open.[7] And yet the Japanese still didn't surrender.

1c. Peace was not an option.

The United States have given Japan a reasonable offer of peace called the Potsdam Declaration. Here are the main points of the Potsdam declaration, which have been sized down a bit.[8]

*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.

*Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

*The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

*The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

*We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

*Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

*The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

As you can see, this was a very reasonable offer, especially as Japan had literally no hope at all of winning the war. To quote the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."[9]. Their prime minister stated that their response to the Potsdam Declaration would be mokosatsu, or to kill with silence, which basically means to ignore[8].

Conclusion

Obviously, the only viable option for the United States was to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima. While the deaths and lingering radiation were regrettable, they were still better than all other options. So the United States should have used the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sources

[1] http://www.britannica.com...
[2] http://www.globalsecurity.org...
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[4] http://www.jnto.go.jp...
[5] http://www.historyofwar.org...
[6] http://www.operationolympic.com...
[7] http://www.bookmice.net...
[8]http://www.trumanlibrary.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

(Yes, I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, but I couldn't find this elsewhere as I do not have access to the reference made in Wikipedia)
LaissezFaire

Con

1a. Comparing the relative sizes and populations of Okinawa and the Japanese mainland is misleading—there are many other differences between the two. One, by the time we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, the Japanese military was almost completely defeated, and wouldn't have been able to put up much of a fight. Two, there's no reason to think an invasion would have had to be a conquering of all of Japan, in the same way we conquered Okinawa. Military estimates at the time said that the worst-case scenario for an invasion of mainland Japan would result in 46,000 American deaths, [1] rather than the half-million or even "millions of lives" (George W. Bush) many claim would have been lost.

But this point is irrelevant, since there's absolutely no reason to believe that invasion of Japan or atomic bombing were the only two choices America had, as I will explain below.

1b. While some people in the Japanese government did plan an all-out defense of Japan, arming all their civilians with bows and swords and such, there's no reason to think anyone would have actually gone along with this plan. While some Japanese believe that the Emperor was a god and would be willing to die for him, this was definitely a minority belief—popular among the ruling class, but not among the general population. It's part of the Shinto religion, but Japan is (and was at the time) a mostly Buddhist country.

Furthermore, the Japanese actually did try to surrender months before the atomic bombings. From Truman's handwritten diary, on July 18th, 1945: "Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. (Churchill) of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace…" [2]

Military leaders at the time agreed that the atomic bombings were not necessary for peace. "Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different than what the general public supposed. When I asked MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn that he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed — as it did later anyway — to the retention of the institution of the emperor."" [3]

Dwight Eisenhower agreed that the bombings were unnecessary. "In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act… The Secretary, upon giving me the news of a successful bomb test in New Mexico, and the plan for using it, asked for my reaction expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him 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 our country should avoid shocking world opinion by 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 the very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…" [4]

John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War under Truman, said, "I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe that we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender that was satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs." [5]

1c. The Potsdam Declaration seems reasonable at first glance, but upon further examination, is not, and was probably deliberately designed to make sure the Japanese did not surrender. The declaration calls for "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners." This fails to make an exemption for the Emperor, which the Japanese demanded even after the atomic bombings, and the Americans accepted. If I wanted to make peace with a leader, the last thing I'd do is say or imply that I was going to try him for war crimes and execute him, especially if I was perfectly willing to grant him amnesty and let him remain on the throne.

The Potsdam Declaration also threatens Japan with "prompt and utter destruction" if they failed to surrender. While it's obvious now what that refers to, at the time, it is a vague and completely meaningless threat. A far more effective threat would have been something along the lines of, ‘we're going to bomb two of your cities to dust, and the Soviets are going to invade.'


Conclusion:
In conclusion, the atomic bombings were unnecessary and immoral because the Japanese were willing to surrender without them, as long as we let their Emperor stay as a figurehead, which we eventually did anyway. For dropping them, Harry Truman is a mass murderer and a war criminal, and ought to go down as one of history's greatest monsters.

Sources:
[1] Barton J. Bernstein, "A Post-War Myth: 500,000 US Lives Saved," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 42, no. 6 (June/July 1986): pp. 38–40; and idem, "Wrong Numbers," The Independent Monthly (July 1995): pp. 41–44.
[2] http://www.pbs.org...
[3] Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70—71
[4] Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, pg. 380
[5] McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500
Debate Round No. 2
seraine

Pro

Refutations:

1a. While the Japanese Army was close to defeat, Operation Ketsubo would have still had massive casualties. They had about 10,000 planes, most of which were going to be kamikaze. They had 100's of midget submarines, manned torpedos, and suicide boats. They also had about 900,000 men and 3 tank brigades[1]. With over 900,000 Japanese alone, you could be sure that there would be many ore casualties than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And it is true that we wouldn't have to conquer all of Japan, but that is because virtually every thing Japan had was going to be in Operation Ketsubo. And they didn't care about losing men, as the 10,000 or so kamikaze planes show. Rather, they were trying to inflect as many casualties as possible. From this it is obvious that there would have been massive casualties, especially since the Japanese were arming many civilians with bows and swords. To put it simply, it would be a slaughter on both sides.

1b. Who says that the Japanese wouldn't fight? The Japanese would do almost anything to defend their country. At Iwo Jima, only 212 out of 22,000 surrendered while trapped[2]. This just goes to show how dedicated the Japanese were to defending their country. Not only that, what about all of the kamikazes or suicide boats or bonzai attacks? The Japanese would not surrender or run away, and they would go with the plan. While it was not a belief that you must deadfastly follow the emperor in religion, the soldiers in the military would definitely follow the command of their emperor, especially with bushido.

While it is true that some members of the Japanese did want to surrender, most did not. For example, out of the messages we intercepted from diplomats in Japan, only 3-4 suggested the possibility of peace, while 13 said that Japan would fight til the bitter end[3]. In fact, even after both bombs their was a coup by a group of Japanese soldiers to try and stop the surrender broadcast[4]. In addition, while there were Japanese diplomats who attempted to seek peace, only 1 actually had the authority to act for the Japanese government. And of the 1 that did, they also wanted to preserve the Big Six, who were primarily responsible for much of Japan's involvement in World War 2. In addition, 1 Japanese ambassador stated that Hirohito remaining in office wouldn't be that much of a step in the right direction. Not only that, there was no real consensus among the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the invasion of Japan. Yes, some believed in just waiting, but others believed in invasion, while others believed in the nuke[5].

I could not find the terms to the peace attempt mentioned in Truman's diary. However, according to Robert Maddox, the terms included the prewar empire and imperial system remaining intact[7]. Not very reasonable terms at all.

1c. First, where did you find"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."? I looked through the text of 6 different websites and could not find that.

Next, mentioning a weapon that could instantly destroy a city could seem like an empty bluff. Imagine how utterly foolish that would seem to the Japanese! A single weapon which could destroy a entire city in seconds! Not only that, points 2,3, and 13 actually threaten Japan, and 2 and 3 are especially convincing, though probably not as convincing as the Soviets.

And bombing entire cities to dust was not new to the Japanese. We had been doing it for months. In fact, cities such as Toyama were 100% destroyed. The firebombing of Tokyo destroyed around 33 square miles of Tokyo[6]. As you can see, destroying a entire city was nothing new to the Japanese.

Conclusion

Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the way to end the war with the fewest casualties on both sides, and Truman made the right choice.

Sources

[1] http://www.operationolympic.com...
[2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
[3] http://www.weeklystandard.com...
[4] http://www.bookmice.net...
[5] http://www.weeklystandard.com...
(you should read the weekly standard article, as it is very illuminating)
[6] http://www.bookmice.net...
[7] http://hnn.us...
LaissezFaire

Con


1a. As I’m not arguing America should have invaded rather than used the atomic bombs, this point is pointless to continue arguing, so I’ll just drop it. My argument is that neither an American invasion nor the dropping of the atomic bombs were necessary to end the war, so it really doesn’t matter if the American invasion would have been more deadly than the atomic bombs.



1b. Perhaps soldiers would have fought, but the claim that the average person would have taken up swords and sticks to die for their Emperor is absurd. Soldiers fought and died because they believed they were protecting their homes and families, not for the Emperor.


And even if the Japanese weren’t willing to surrender prior to August, that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have if they had known what was going to happen. Surely, if they surrendered after the actual events (the bombings and the Soviet invasion), they would have been willing to surrender earlier to avoid those terrible things. But they were never warned of those things—the Potsdam Declaration left out the crucial details of what the threat actually was and what the terms of peace would actually be, as I describe below. This is likely why the top military commanders at the time, MacArthur and Eisenhower, agreed with me that the atomic bombings weren’t necessary.



1c. “First, where did you find "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."?”


It is from the 5th bullet point of your part 1c. from Round 2. I also see it here [1], and many other places when googling that text.


And, while points 2,3, and 13 of the declaration are certainly threats, they’re still vague threats. While the idea of the atomic bomb may have seemed absurd to the Japanese at the time, the Americans could have simply threatened to destroy 2 cities a different way—through the bombing done to other Japanese cities, for example. Or they could have done a test demonstration of the atomic bomb on a non-populated area in Japan. In addition, as I said before, the declaration fails to mention that the Soviets were going to invade. This is a vital point, as the Japanese were far more afraid of the Soviets than of American bombs, as demonstrated by the fact that other American bombings were just as deadly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but didn’t cause Japan to surrender. Japan’s Prime Minister said at the time, "If we miss [the chance] today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States." [2]


It’s absurd to think that it was the atomic bombings, rather than the Soviet invasion, that forced the Japanese to surrender. As my opponent admits, “And bombing entire cities to dust was not new to the Japanese. We had been doing it for months. In fact, cities such as Toyama were 100% destroyed.” Are we supposed to believe that suddenly the destruction of cities mattered to the Japanese, when it hadn’t before? Why would more of the same make a difference? The things that were different when the Japanese weren’t surrendered weren’t destroyed cities, they were the facts that 1) the Emperor was allowed to stay in his throne and 2) the Soviets had invaded, defeating Japanese forces in Manchuria and Korea, which cut off the supplies Japan vitally needed to continue the war (as opposed to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were of little strategic significance).



Conclusion: The only conclusion one can reach after considering the Potsdam Declaration’s glaring omissions is that the United States did not want peace. It wasn’t even a matter of offering the Japanese more in the peace offer, more favorable terms. The Declaration deliberately conceals the truth, making the terms of peace seem harsher than they were actually going to be, and the danger of not surrendering much less than it actually was. It is obvious to anyone that such things would only make an enemy less likely to surrender.


In addition, there’s no evidence that the atomic bombings, rather than the Soviet invasion, were the cause of Japan’s surrender. This makes the atomic bombings unnecessary, as the top generals at the time, MacArthur and Eisenhower, concluded.



[1] http://en.wikisource.org...


[2] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy, p237


Debate Round No. 3
seraine

Pro

The bomb may of saved lives[3]. As Lester Tenney, a WW2 veteren, says"The atomic bombs saved my life and the lives of at least 140,000 POWs who were in Japan at the time,".
That's over � the deaths from the atomic bombs. While that is probably a bit much, there still would have been a significant amount because all other actions would have took time, in which more POWs would die.

Refutations:

R1. The Japanese would fight desperately.

At Okinawa, about 40,000 civilians were drafted[1]. While it was the only battle were the Japanese surrendered by the thousands, not all Okinawans surrendered either. And they only surrendered while trapped, because imagine the reaction of other Japanese soldiers if some tried to surrender. Not only that, the civilian's did not make up most of the Japanese army, and it isn't likely that they'd amount to many casualties for the Americans.

R1A. Peace was not an option.

I'm sorry about missing that stern justice part... I think it was because I was sure it'd be in the punishments part, not when they were talking about the good stuff.

We cannot be sure that a threat that could be an empty bluff would be enough to persuade the Japanese to surrender.

Even after both A-Bombs and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese Big Six still couldn't decide whether or not to surrender, and required the Emperor's voice to finally decide to surrender[8]. It is obvious from this that peace was not an option.

R2. The A-Bomb is scarier than firebombing.

While bombing cities to dust wasn't new to the Japanese, it also wasn't very common.Yes, there was some cities bombed to dust, there also wasn't very many. The fire raids did destroy � of Japan's housing and a significant part of their cities[2], but cities like Toyama weren't very common.

Bombing non-populated areas may have scared them, but that still wouldn't have been as terrifying as bombing a city. After all, the Japanese were very resistant to surrender.

What this means is that though bombing cities to dust wasn't anything new to the Japanese, it also wasn't much of a threat to them. In fact, they could have mistaken the bombing cities to dust threat as a massive firebombing raid. But this isn't conceding that the atomic bomb wasn't much of a threat. Rather, it is saying that the firebombing raids of the past weren't much of a threat to the Japanese, but something new did have the potential to scare the Japanese.

Other bombings were just as deadly? No, the firebombing of Tokyo, a huge city, had about 100,000 deaths. That isn't even close to the deaths from the A-Bombs in much smaller cities.

R2A. The A-Bomb is scarier than the Soviets.

The atomic bomb could destroy huge cities with such ease. All you had to do was fly your B-27 above the city, drop the bomb, and get out. They could destroy any Japanese city, 100%, with basically no effort at all.

And the Japanese Big Six believed that the Americans had another 100 bombs ready to go[4]. The Americans could basically destroy all of Japan on a whim with a 100 nukes. Imagine the terror if the US believed Canada had a 100 nukes and had already been nuked twice(and the US had none, just like the Japanese), and if the US didn't surrender, they would use them on the US. You can be sure that the US would surrender right away.

How are the Soviet forces that much different from all the other forces in the world combined? Not only that, the atomic bombs were specifically designed to prevent the deaths from invasions(sure, maybe the US didn't intend to include Japanese and Soviets in that as well, but saving lives is still good). In the Soviet invasion of Japan, there was anywhere from 30,000-90,000 KIA, along with many more wounded[5]. Not only that, of the three days the Soviet soldiers effectively followed the words "rape and pillage"[5].

Soviet invasions often lead to wars like the Korean War[7], which add up to many deaths.

However, your argument still is that the Soviet invasion was more threatening than the A-bombs, not about casualties.

I ask you, how could a invasion be more threatening than a object which they believed could effectively destroy all of Japan on a whim. While, yes, the Soviets were threatening, there was about 1,600,000 Soviets in the invasion of Manchuria[6]. While that is a lot, is it enough to be more threatening than a enemy that supposedly could destroy you on a whim?

[1] http://militaryhistory.about.com...
[2] http://www.japanfocus.org...
[3] http://articles.sfgate.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Yes, Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, but I don't have access to the references)
[6] http://soviet-invasion-of-manchuria.co.tv...
[7] http://www.britains-smallwars.com...
[8] http://www.doug-long.com...
LaissezFaire

Con

Again, saying that invasion would have cost more lives than atomic bombing is irrelevant, as I'm arguing that neither was necessary to end the war.

R1: See above. The Japanese military probably would have fought hard had there been an invasion. But one wasn't necessary, so it doesn't matter at all how hard they would've fought.

R1A: "We cannot be sure that a threat that could be an empty bluff would be enough to persuade the Japanese to surrender."
Which is why a test atomic bomb could have been dropped, to show them what we were capable of. And we could have waited until after the Soviets attacked to drop the bombs, showing them that that wasn't an empty threat either.

"Other bombings were just as deadly? No, the firebombing of Tokyo, a huge city, had about 100,000 deaths. That isn't even close to the deaths from the A-Bombs in much smaller cities."
Actually, that's equal to the amount of people killed by both atomic bombs in the initial bombing. (Of course, 100,000 more people died later, but the Japanese didn't know that when they surrendered, so the initial deaths are the ones that count).

R2A: Here, my opponent claims that the Japanese feared that we would be able to atomic bomb all of Japan to dust, and that's what scared them into surrendering. If this is the case, then why wouldn't an atomic bombing of an unpopulated area, or a military target, have worked just as well? My opponent admits that destroyed cities and civilian deaths had never been a problem for the Japanese before—if that's true, then it was the threat of total destruction, not the actual civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that caused Japan to surrender. That threat could have been made just as well without killing civilians.

"How are the Soviet forces that much different from all the other forces in the world combined?"
They'd be much more brutal conquerors, as the Japanese knew. As the Japanese Prime Minister said, "If we miss [the chance] today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States." [1] They clearly feared Soviet occupation more than American occupation. Another difference is that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and Korea cut off the supplies Japan needed to continue the war effort.

And while my opponent is correct that the Soviet invasion lead to many deaths then, and many more in later wars, such deaths are irrelevant. We aren't talking about a choice between the Soviet invasion and the atomic bombings, we're talking about a choice between both of those things and just the Soviet invasion.

Conclusion: The US had several choices that would have been much better than the atomic bombings. First, they could have threatened Japan with the atomic bombings and a Soviet invasion—the Japanese thought the Soviets were going to remain neutral until the surprise attack, knowing what threat they were actually facing could have forced them to surrender without either the invasion or the bombings needing to actually happen. The US could have shown the Japanese what the atomic bomb was capable of by testing it on an unpopulated or military target—if the Japanese fear of total annihilation was enough to get them to surrender, then that threat could have been made without actually killing any civilians.

Second, if just threats of Soviet invasion weren't enough, the Americans could have waited until the Soviets took over Manchuria and Korea—that, in addition to the threat of the atomic bomb (which, again, could have been made without killing civilians), would surely have been enough to get the Japanese to surrender. They weren't going to be able to continue to fight without the supplies they got from their empire, and, as the quote from Japan's Prime Minister from earlier shows, they'd greatly prefer surrender to the US than surrender to the Soviets.

Instead of making threats that could have ended the war earlier, the US chose the deadliest option—making sure the Japanese had no reason to surrender, then quickly killing as many of them as they could with a surprise Soviet invasion and surprise atomic bombing.

[1] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy, p237
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by coldog22 5 years ago
coldog22
If you think of it, the japanese had a code of no surrendering. which means that if we would not have destroyed them in 2 major cities o show our power, they would have recruited even more soldiers to fight us, we would have had an even bigger war. We did fire bomb the hell out of tokoyo and other major cities in japan and a warning, but when they still resisted to give up the atomic bomb was our next best option. better be glad we didnt use a hydrogen bomb, japan would be gone.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Why is this so suddenly popular?
Posted by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
Were there not kamikazi bombers at Pearl Harbor?
Posted by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
Thanks, PCP.
Posted by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
Nice job, LF.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
"Just look at the Kamakazi bombers in pearl harbor"

lol wut?
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
"Just look at the Kamakazi bombers in pearl harbor"

lol wut?
Posted by coldog22 5 years ago
coldog22
we had bombed japan so bad with fire bombs, that when we dropped the nuke (atomic bomb) it did little to no damage to japan, some may ask why not drop it on tokyo, well we destroyed the hell out of it. the second nuke (atomic bomb) finaly made the japaneese piss their pants, and they surrendered.
Posted by seraine 6 years ago
seraine
So you would rather that at least 900,000 (900,00 from the fact that the Japanese had 900,000 in the military and almost no Japanese surrendered on Iwo Jima, even when surrounded) die than 200,000 die? Yes, it may be more "honorable", but there is AT THE VERY LEAST almost 5X the deaths.

Yes, the lingering radiation is regrettable, but imagine the state of Japan if the U.S. and the Soviets invaded... (hint... wasteland). After that, Japan's economy would have been utterly destroyed. And Pearl Harbor wasn't the only Japanese attack on Americans...there was, after all, a War in the Pacific (battles include- Iwo Jima, Midway, Coral Sea, Okinawa).
Posted by Aceviper2011 6 years ago
Aceviper2011
I am also against the bombings of Japan. My points with out sources (hate using other peoples studies and thoughts) We joined the war after the bombing of Pearl Harbor we all would agree, the technology the Japs had was outstanding along with Germans, but during the attack of Pearl Harbor was a strategic move on the most heavily defended not only that the biggest naval military around the world that we americans had was a threat so Japan made the move to take it out any way they can, now civilian life was not as fatal as people in the military during this attack. All know if you sign up in the military which i am greatful for the people who did, but we all know the risk involved. Now we had many choices on retaliation not just one and that is to use the atomic bomb as a so they say strategic move. We do not realize that it was not the best move to use it was desperation move, many people died not only military men but more was innocent civilian life. We invaded Germany on which they call D-day why not do the same on Japan, why did we hide behind bombs that brought great destruction not only at the time when they were dropped but still today since atomic even nuclear bombs radiation on the land takes up to 100,000 years to leave the land of the current drop and around that land by the air it carries the poison to. Still today people die from the poison, if we could invade germany and get good results then we could of the same in japan, but no we had to use bombs that still today effect innocent lives and future lives still to come. do they deserve death from the past cause of our supposivily call strategic move, it was a bad move that killed way more lives then the attack on Pearl Harbor. so i am with the con side.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really caused himself damage when he said that the war could have been won without an invasion or the bombings, so arguments go to pro. Other than that though this was a really interesting debate but all the vote cancellations below were irritating
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am canceling TheFreeThinker's absurd vote bomb. I would have given Con arguments anyway. Pro missed a lot of evidence on the estimated cost of invading Japan.
Vote Placed by TheFreeThinker 5 years ago
TheFreeThinker
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Yes
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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: LaissezFaire clearly made the stronger arguments particularly in rebutting "the atomic bomb forcing them to surrender" bit.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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 the bombings would more than likely kill more people than there needed to be killed
Vote Placed by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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: Cancelling iluvdebate's non-vote. What a faggot.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: "That threat could have been made just as well without killing civilians." - well presented but this was the deciding factor, and seraine never really warranted that the bombs specifically caused the surrender . 3:2 Con
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: i have recently learned about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and I agree with pro that Japan would not have surrendered even if outnumbered heavily. Just look at the Kamakazi bombers in pearl harbor
Vote Placed by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
seraineLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
seraineLaissezFaireTied
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: I voted Con because he had evidence from specific military generals saying that the bombings were not needed. But this one was close. Kudos to both of you.