The Instigator
Reigon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
glozellgreen117
Con (against)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 336 times Debate No: 92652
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

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
glozellgreen117

Con

I believe that the use of atomic bombs upon the city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during WW2 was unjustified because it left many innocent civilians as well as The Imperial Japanese dead.
Debate Round No. 1
Reigon

Pro

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...
glozellgreen117

Con

A reason that America was unjustified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because Japan was ready to surrender only a few months after the warning was given out. With nearly 60 cities destroyed because of American troops as well as bombs, Japan saw that there was little more hope for them and in order to save lives they would surrender.

A document sent to the American generals stated the Japanese terms of surrender. The terms included:

" Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.

" Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.

" Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.

" Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.

" Release of all prisoners of war and internees.

" Surrender of designated war criminals.

However, because of the inflexibility of the terms, Japan was rejected of their pleads for peace. It is arguable that the Japanese were unwilling to adjust their terms, but after several attempts to create peace America should have granted them their requests. This would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

In addition, the U.S. generals did not give enough time for word to filter out that they were going to atomic bomb Nagasaki. Had they given out the warning sooner, innocent lives would not have been lost. Also, if the Japanese were aware of the disastrous effects of the bomb they would have surrendered unconditionally in order to protect the lives of their people.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not defeat Japan, nor did they persuade Japan to accept surrender unconditionally. The emperor, along with other government officials, decided that the war should be ended even if it meant accepting defeat as early as May of 1945. If America had given them more time to retreat and prove that they were determined to create peace the atomic bombs would not have been necessary.

An additional reason for the atomic bombing was to prove to the rest of the world, especially the Soviet Union, that America had a strong military. However, it was not worth killing an unbelievable amount of innocent lives in order to prove how powerful they are.

Another reason for the bombing was to justify the nearly two billion dollars spent on the atomic bombs manufacture. General Eisenhower, along with many other officials as well as civilians knew about the production of the atomic bomb. If the government were to not use the bomb Americans would lose faith in their government and assume that they do not know how to spend their money wisely. Therefore the use of the bomb was apparently "necessary".

Even Albert Einstein, a scientist that assisted in the production of the bomb, thought that detonating it was incredibly inhumane.

"In the summer of 1939 Dr. Szilard put before me his views concerning the potential importance of uranium for national defense. He was greatly disturbed by the potentialities involved and anxious that the United States Government be advised of them as soon as possible." Einstein goes on to say, "I understand that he [Dr. Szilard] now is greatly concerned about the lack of adequate contact between scientists who are doing this work and those members of your Cabinet who are responsible for formulating policy."

The atomic bombs use greatly concerned Dr. Szilard, as well as Albert Einstein. There were various devastating repercussions that were overlooked by the American generals as well as President Roosevelt.
Debate Round No. 2
Reigon

Pro

Thank you for the quick response. Anyway onto the rebuttals! Note my initial argument was copy pasted from a debate with someone else as they did not respond so sorry if they don't directly relate to our debate.

Please provide sources in your debates.

"A document sent to the American generals stated the Japanese terms of surrender. The terms included:"
This sounds a bit sketchy, the surrender terms sounds as if it's coming from an American perspective not Japanese.

Not sure what you mean by that but let's look at it from the Japanese POV. The Japanese military and government is responsible for the murder of millions of Asians.
Japanese aggression caused the deaths of 3-4 Chinese military deaths and 20 million in total counting civilians.
Philippines 57,000 military deaths, 500,000-1,000,000 total deaths counting civilians.
Not to mention numerous other nations that experienced the atrocities Japanese military has created.
Look at yourself from the Japanese government's perspective if you were responsible for so many deaths as a result of your own aggression wouldn't you accept an unconditional surrender?

The Japanese government refused to accept their responsibilities for war crimes committed by their military (military controlled their government as well during that time.)

The United States wanted unconditional surrender to create a lasting peace. They wanted to prevent WWIII from occurring again, which would've caused even more suffering in the near future. With an unconditional surrender the US was able to invest into Japanese infrastructure, reform their government into a democratic country and bring Japan to the world power it is today.

This is why only an unconditional surrender is acceptable.

"In addition, the U.S. generals did not give enough time for word to filter out that they were going to atomic bomb Nagasaki. Had they given out the warning sooner, innocent lives would not have been lost. Also, if the Japanese were aware of the disastrous effects of the bomb they would have surrendered unconditionally in order to protect the lives of their people."
Where did you get this from?

The US dropped leaflets are all potential targets warning civilians to flee those cities.
"After the Hiroshima attack, a faction of Japan"s supreme war council favored acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, but the majority resisted unconditional surrender."
There was plenty of time it was the Japanese government that refused to unconditional surrender even after Hiroshima.

The Atomic bombs were not the sole factor to defeat Japan no one believes that however the bombs did force Japan to accept unconditional surrender.

The longer the war delays the more Japanese people will starve, including POWs who would've been the first to go. There was a naval blockade causing supplies to be scarce in Japan, even on the verge of defeat Japan still refused to surrender. Japan even formed militias to defend the homeland preparing for the potential invasion.

"An additional reason for the atomic bombing was to prove to the rest of the world, especially the Soviet Union, that America had a strong military. However, it was not worth killing an unbelievable amount of innocent lives in order to prove how powerful they are."
The following is a popular conspiracy theory with no valid proof only theories to back it up.

Another reason for the bombing was to justify the nearly two billion dollars spent on the atomic bombs manufacture. General Eisenhower, along with many other officials as well as civilians knew about the production of the atomic bomb. If the government were to not use the bomb Americans would lose faith in their government and assume that they do not know how to spend their money wisely. Therefore the use of the bomb was apparently "necessary".

Actually the first Atomic bomb aka the Manhattan Project was tested in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The US knew the capabilities of the Atomic bomb already and did not need to test it on japan. As for spending, 2 billion was nothing compared to the total spending of World War II by the US. The US had spent $296 billion in total for the war, the 2 billion invested into the Atomic bomb was a success as they know the potential of the Atomic bomb. If they wanted the US could've invited Japanese and Soviet leaders to an Atomic bomb testing but would that have worked? It took two Atomic bombs to forced Japan to surrender and we only had those two.

As for the morality of the bomb I refer to my above statement of deaths caused by Japanese aggression.

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.

Source:
http://www.nationalww2museum.org...

http://www.pbs.org...

http://ww2days.com...

http://www.history.com...
glozellgreen117

Con

Including on the opinion to not drop the bomb, the head scientist of creating the bomb during the Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer didn"t agree with dropping it. When Oppenheimer saw how explosive the bomb was he said it had reminded him of a saying from a book "Bhagavad Gita: I am become death, destroyer of worlds." Oppenheimer was distraught to think that something he had created had destroyed so many lives and he felt responsible for those who died because of the bombs. Robert Oppenheimer said towards the end of his life in regards to the atomic bombings, "I have no remorse about the making of the bomb and Trinity [the first test of an a-bomb]. That was done right. As for how we used it, I understand why it happened and appreciate with what nobility those men with whom I'd worked made their decision. But I do not have the feeling that it was

done right. The ultimatum to Japan [the Potsdam Proclamation demanding Japan's surrender] was full of pious platitudes. ...our government should have acted with more foresight and clarity in telling the world and Japan what the bomb meant." This quote expressed from how he felt about the bombing shows that he didn"t intend it to be used in such a horrific way.

Not only did the main directors of making the atomic bomb not agree with it, but the military was very limited compared to the amount of military. The two cities that America decided to bomb didn"t even have much military power. Civilians had outnumbered troops from six to one. If America really wanted to hurt Japan so badly by using such a powerful weapon, they should have bombed somewhere where it could have made a bigger impact against their military instead of innocent citizens.

Another reason to look at, why couldn"t America just use fire bombings instead of atomic bombings? America became the first and only country to use atomic weapons throughout every- single year of history throughout the whole entire world. Firebombing would have hurt Japan too, but America used the atomic bombs just to look superior compared to other countries, especially the Soviet Union. If anything, the U.S. should have only needed to bomb Japan once, besides the war was almost over anyways.

You must wonder why the United States is the only country in the world that actually used nuclear weapons. They have deadly and lasting costs. Not only were there the immediate deaths of thousands of civilians, but thousands more died in the months to come after the bomb was dropped due to the radiation produced from it. Additionally, thousands more lives were lost even further down the like during the Korean War because of many suffering from starvation due to loss of so much land and sources of food. No potential loss of lives from a Japanese invasion outweighs the long lasting effects of the tragic dropping of an atomic bomb on another country. The United State's decision also played a large role in igniting the Cold War.
Debate Round No. 3
Reigon

Pro

You need to provide sources for your arguments.
You have also not responded to any of my arguments.

In conclusion people are free to agree or disagree with the use of Atomic bombs but in the end the bomb clearly saved millions of lives.

The Potsdam Proclamation was clear cut
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Japan refused that.

The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the engines of Japan, bombing those cities crippled Japan's ability to wage war. The military can't fight without adequate supplies, again leaflets were sent warning potential targets (cities) to flee.

"they should have bombed somewhere where it could have made a bigger impact against their military instead of innocent citizens."

My biggest question is why are you willing to sentence people who serve in the military to death but not innocent civilians? Not citizens civilians. Just because people served in the Japanese military does not mean they committed war crimes and should be sentenced to death. What if that person who served was drafted? Does that mean they should be sentenced to death over civilians? What if that was the only prospect for "Hachrio" to serve? "Hachrio" had to provide for his family and was unable to unless he served, if he did not serve his parents and siblings would starve, does that mean because he chose to serve it's alright to take his life away but not a civilians? This is just an example, I hope you understand that.

Fire bombing takes time, and again time is precious. Who knows how many months of firebombing it would've took to force Japan to surrender? Months? Years? Time is precious the more time passes the more suffering Japanese people will endure during the war.

The US was the only country to use Atomic bombs yes that's true. However look at the lives saved as a result of the bomb (look above in our arguments.) The lasting effect of the Atomic bomb was very minor in comparison to the actual invasion of Japan. Did the Atomic bomb kill millions of allies, Japanese military and civilians? No, the Atomic bomb was the best option available the lesser evil of them all. How does the Korean War relate to the use of Atomic bombs during WWII? It further proves my point actually millions of Japanese would've starved if the Atomic bombs did not force the Japanese government to surrender.

Even before the use of Atomic bombs the Soviet Union was in the process of creating their own Atomic bombs. The Cold War is a different topic, while it is relevant to the use of Atomic bombs in Japan it was not the sole factor in causing the Cold War.

http://www.ndl.go.jp...
glozellgreen117

Con

glozellgreen117 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheWorldIsComplicated// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last round, so Pro automatically wins. Pro provided better points and was able to defend his point more clearly.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) While the voter is allowed to award conduct for a forfeit in the debate, the voter may not award other points on that basis alone. (2) The voter doesn't explain sources. (3) The explanation for arguments is too overgeneralized. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides in the debate as part of assessing arguments, and must assess the reliability of the evidence.
************************************************************************
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 5 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Just leaving a comment so this debate is in my favorites and I can vote on it later for Reigon.

42
Posted by Reigon 5 months ago
Reigon
You're not making sense vi_spex, do you have an issue with Muslims?
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
nice story.. lets make one similar next time.. then we get the muslims
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 5 months ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
The Japanese would have lost millions and we would have lost a good number too. The atomic bombs, ironically, prevented millions of deaths.
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
japan are not muslims
No votes have been placed for this debate.