The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justified
Debate Rounds (3)
Round two is arguments
Round three is rebuttal
I am saying Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified events
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.
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...)
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.)
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!'
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.