The Instigator
Shadowhuntress
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mrchu39
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
mrchu39
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2014 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,333 times Debate No: 54093
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

Shadowhuntress

Pro

Round one is acceptance
Round two is arguments
Round three is rebuttal

I am saying Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified events
mrchu39

Con

What exactly constitutes justification for killing hundreds of thousands over something that could have been prevented? While it was necessary for the U.S to withdraw from Japan, dropping a fifteen and twenty-one kiloton atomic bomb without a truly proper warning was not necessary. They very likely could have been much more diplomatic than they were, and killing 225,000 in two bomb blasts does not compare with a death toll of 1,000 at Pearl Harbor. Obviously, the Japanese were more at fault for the loss of life during the course of World War II, but killing that many people to end a war quickly makes us just as much of a terrorist as them.
Debate Round No. 1
Shadowhuntress

Pro

(Good speech, but round one was only supposed to be acceptance)

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified for several reasons. For one, Japan had killed over"6,000,000 Chinese, Korean and other ethnicity in the invasion of China (http://www.hawaii.edu...)."
For another, the allies had made it clear that they would only accept unconditional surrender, which Emperor Hirohito would not comply too. (http://www.history.com...). Also, Japan was starting to kill themselves over the need for victory-literally-. Over 1500 Kamikaze pilots died in WWII. (http://cronkitezine.asu.edu...)."
Lastly, the bombings of Japan saved even more lives from a war-fare death. A Japanese general stated that 'we would have kept fighting until all the Japanese were dead', further strengthening my above argument. (http://m.theatlantic.com...)
mrchu39

Con

In your reference to Japanese pilots killing themselves in the face of the war, it would not make sense to nuclear bomb them to get them to stop killing themselves. An analogy to this would be penalizing mentally depressed people by demeaning and cruel to them. In addition, you brought up the point of Chinese and other Asian countries being oppressed by Japan. This is not the problem of the U.S. if another country is being influenced negatively. If it is a serious issue, it is the duty of the United Nations, or League of Nations at the time, to intervene and prevent such an occurrence. It is not the United State's duty to police the world and intervene in every chance that it gets. The League should have dealt with the Japanese, not the United States. (And sorry for forgetting the acceptance round; I'm new to this site. I guess now it's lopsided now.)
Debate Round No. 2
Shadowhuntress

Pro

(It's cool.)

As you mentioned in round one, there was no 'proper warning'. However, a little known fact is that warning leaflets were dropped into the cities, telling citizens to evacuate or face the consequences. (http://www.damninteresting.com...). I think you misunderstood what I was saying with the Kamikaze pilots. It was meant to further prove that without an absolute intervention, Japan would have killed themselves out.
The League of Nations was unable to do much to prevent WWII or WWII related issues, such as the breaking of the Geneva Convention, the Holocaust, etc. (http://geography.about.com...). Also, did you honestly expect the war crazed Axis Powers to listen to The League of Nations? 'Oh sorry for our little world conquest tantrum. We'll remove our forces immediately!'
mrchu39

Con

The idea of the League of Nations intervening was so that the U.S. would not have to. There is no international law regarding the U.S. as a global police force, and if there is a foreign problem, it is not America's duty to intervene. In addition, the leaflets were dropped after the atomic bombs were dropped (http://www.commondreams.org...). And anyway, if random pieces of paper rained down telling you to evacuate from your country, most people would not feel obligated to leave.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Good vs evil? are you serious?
Thankfully the war crimes of the winners are war crimes of the good.
WW2 was not justified. And the bombings were not justified either. Killing innocent for what? So you can save them from more killing. That is retarded.
Posted by Rayze 3 years ago
Rayze
So you are calling Leo Szilard, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, General Douglas MacArthur, General Dwight D. Eisenhower as irrational men because they opposed the use of the bomb, and advocated that The US accept the Empire of Japan's calls for a conditional surrender

And World War Two was not a black and white conflict of good vs evil. It was HELL on Earth! Every Nation involved in World War II committed war crimes and atrocities on one another. No country can claim the moral high ground not even good ol' USA. Only the losers of World War II were tried and convicted for their crimes while the victors rested briefly on their bloody wreaths before turning on each other in the Cold War.
Posted by Shadowhuntress 3 years ago
Shadowhuntress
WWII was fully justified! Germany is trying to take over Europe. Something had to be done, not to mention stoping the Holocaust
Posted by Oldmanjenkins 3 years ago
Oldmanjenkins
World War 2 was a fully justified war. Anyone who knows the history of it will agree it was a black and white, good vs evil. Were we and our allies to abstain from war due to its moral shortcomings , we would have been utterly destroyed. Please tell me WW2 was unjustified.
Posted by Oldmanjenkins 3 years ago
Oldmanjenkins
Any rational human being weighing these options would clearly pick the bombing . My Japanese friend who is sitting next to me fully agrees and says that, however horrible the bombings were, they indirectly saved Japan from much more severe destruction as a result of an invasion.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
That's not my point. The point is that wars need to be justified so the bombings are justified. IF wars were justified, then it's fine, the bombings MAY reduce the casualties.

Anyway i find it unethical to think that the bombings were justified.
Posted by Oldmanjenkins 3 years ago
Oldmanjenkins
When WW2 started , America very publicly stated that it would only accept an unconditional surrender. Accepting a conditional surrender was not an option and would have likely caused numerous and unforseen problems as a result. The US was faced with two options, that is fact. Those were to try and shock Japan into surrendering by bombing them, or face a long - drawn out war that would undoubtedly have cost millions of lives on BOTH sides.
Posted by Shadowhuntress 3 years ago
Shadowhuntress
I'm not saying wars are justified, but sometimes they have to happen! Would you rather we hand the world up on a silver platter?
Posted by Rayze 3 years ago
Rayze
The Bombings were unjustified, If Truman followed the advice of his Pacific Generals and Admirals to accept the Conditional Surrender of the Empire of Japan, then he wouldn't have had to dropped the bombs. The invasion option was only on the table because of Truman's insistence of an Unconditional surrender. The Empire knew that fact as did Truman. The only reason why Truman decided to nuke a beaten nation is to send a Message to the Soviet Union saying Look at what I got.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Implying wars are justified.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Shadowhuntressmrchu39Tied
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: point 1: U.S. justice, I give the point to Con, it's the responsibility of the international community to punish war crimes, not one country, and certainly not through mass murder. Point 2: Proper warning. Con wins this point as it is undenyable that there was no proper warning. Even if leaflets did say "you will be destroyed", thats what is always said in every war. They had no way of knowing in particular how nukes would be different. Point 3: ending the war faster. While this is incorrect and disproven by the historical record, pro wins this point because con dropped the point. by 2-1, con wins on arguments.