The Instigator
Reigon
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Skyy_King
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The use of Atomic bombs on Japan was 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 2 votes the winner is...
Reigon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 414 times Debate No: 92467
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

Reigon

Pro

I support the use of Atomic bombs as it was the best option available to prevent the least causalities possible.

Round 1: Introduction
Round 2: Argument
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusion
Skyy_King

Con

Absolutely NOT, I will firmly disagree that dropping an atomic bomb on a country is always WRONG. Civilians are not always part of the war discourse, and should not be targeted as a result. When you drop an A-bomb you target everyone (whether the civilians be pro or con war). Diplomacy would of been a far better answer.
Debate Round No. 1
Reigon

Pro

We're only discussing the use of Atomic bombs on Japan during WWII not using Atomic bombs on any other scenario keep that in mind.

Anyway I support the use of Atomic bombs for the following reasons.

1. Japanese government had no intention of surrendering during WWII. Diplomacy is a far better answer but it's not always an option. Just to show even further that Japan had no intention of surrendering:
"After the Hiroshima attack, a faction of Japan"s supreme war council favored acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, but the majority resisted unconditional surrender. "
Japanese government was willing to fight to the last man, woman or child. Even after the atomic bomb in Hiroshima they had no intention of surrendering.
Even after the second bomb on Nagasaki with Japan's surrender a portion of the military did not want to surrender and staged a military coup.
"In the early hours of August 15, a military coup was attempted by a faction led by Major Kenji Hatanaka. The rebels seized control of the imperial palace and burned Prime Minister Suzuki"s residence, but shortly after dawn the coup was crushed."

2. So because the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering the war would've continued. An invasion was one of the options available to end the war. The invasion would've been known as Operation Downfall:
"The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths."
The casualties for an invasion would've been tremendous, those figures are only for the Ally side, imagine how much devastation and deaths Japan would've faced from an invasion. The atomic bomb prevented a need for an invasion.
The other option would be a Naval blockade to cut supplies into Japan. As you know Japanese government had little intention of surrendering and starvation would've been spread across Japan killing unimaginable millions.

3. You're right it's wrong to target civilians but war is never a clear right or wrong path. Keep in mind extending the war would've caused even more deaths on both sides.
Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night was a plan developed by Japanese unit 731 (I'm sure you know about the atrocities committed by that unit)
"Rats infested with plague-carrying fleas were also released by the Japanese. Nobuo Kamaden, a former Unit 731 member, spoke of releasing 500-gram rats with 3,000 plague-carrying fleas into local populations. Chinese prisoners called 'logs' were infected with the plague. Autopsies were performed on these prisoners without the benefit of anesthesia and before they had fully died to harvest fresh tissue samples and infected organs. It was reported that Ishii had devised Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night, a plan to send kamikaze bombers loaded with plague to San Diego, California. The operation was scheduled for 22 September 1945. The Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945."

This operation planned from Japan was halted by Japanese surrender before it could be carried out. If the war continued the operation COULD (as you know it didn't happen as the war ended before then but it's clear Japan had intentions of carrying out the operation) have been initiated causing unimaginable causalities on American civilians.

4. On the topic of civilians casualties, Japanese government and military is known for their atrocities on the millions of civilians in countries they invaded. As shown in Unit 731 you can easily see the horrors committed by the Japanese at the time. I believe the millions especially civilians saved with the use of Atomic bombs of Japan trumps those who lost their lives as a result of the bombs. Of course my sympathy goes out towards the atomic bomb victims.

Sources:
http://www.history.com...
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Skyy_King

Con

Skyy_King forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Reigon

Pro

Sigh as expected w/e.
Skyy_King

Con

Skyy_King forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Skyy_King

Con

Skyy_King forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by edawg3650 8 months ago
edawg3650
Plus con forfeit.
Posted by edawg3650 8 months ago
edawg3650
Gotta agree with pro on this one. Japan stopped at nothing to fight back, so we had to put an end to the war. We warned them ahead of time, as well, in the Meeting of Potsdam.

Wylted, you are clearly racist against the Japanese, which explains your liking for Donald Trump. Please stop.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 8 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Thanks for the vote on my debate today Reigon! I will vote on this one once it concludes.

42
Posted by Reigon 8 months ago
Reigon
Well I see myself as an America first and foremost as I was born in the US.
I don't know who to support for the 2016 presidential election yet but it certainly won't be Hillary.
Posted by Reigon 8 months ago
Reigon
Debatable topic I won't get involved in that as I don't believe in any religion.

But the reason why we chose not to punish Japan was because we learned from the mistakes made during WWI.
Punishing Germany for WWI led to the rise of Hitler which as a result sparked WWII. Punishing Japan would not have helped maintain peace in the world.
Posted by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
Your people built a great wall. Please support Trump so my people can do the same
Posted by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
Yet we are punished for what Adam and Eve did
Posted by Reigon 8 months ago
Reigon
They have a self defense force as their new constitution bars them from creating a real military, this is as a result of World War II. They can easily create a world power military by amending their constitution, it's something I'd personally support as well.

They let us have US military bases in Asia so we may respond quickly to crisis that may occur in that area, they are also a major trading partners with the US.

They are one of the world's major powers as we chose to help invest into their infrastructure instead of punishing them like the allies did during WWI.

Alliance is not solely based off military power.
Think of it like this, why should you pay for crimes your grandfather committed?
Posted by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
They have no military. How useful of an ally can they be?
Posted by Reigon 8 months ago
Reigon
I agree the Japanese have committed numerous unthinkable war crimes during WW II but that's not Japanese people of the 21st century. Not every Japanese person was involved or knew about the atrocities committed either. If you would like I can debate about this with you.
Japan is one of the US's key allies in Asia.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by CookieMonster9 8 months ago
CookieMonster9
ReigonSkyy_KingTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I will list my reasons from top to bottom even though I don't think this needs to be justified. I gave Pro conduct because Con forfeited. I gave Pro arguments because he gave his reasons for why the use of atomic bombs on Japan was justified and Con never rebutted them (forfeited). Pro got source points because he had sources for his reasons and Con doesn't have any sources. This was a sad debate not because of Pro but because of Con's lack of participation. I recommend Pro making another debate about this ( if you do end up making another debate about this send me a link and I'll make sure to follow it.)
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
ReigonSkyy_KingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.