The Instigator
TheBatman
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II 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 6 votes the winner is...
TheBatman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,645 times Debate No: 31624
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

TheBatman

Pro

I will be arguing that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II was justified. By this, I mean to say that using atomic weaponry was not a heinous or "evil" action on the part of The United States.

First Round is only for acceptance
Anti-atheist

Con

accept, JESUS LIVES
Debate Round No. 1
TheBatman

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

The use of atomic weaponry against Imperial Japan in 1945 was a very difficult decision to make. I want to be clear in saying that I am in no way asserting that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were frivolous. It is awful how many people died and how they perished. That said, it was simply the best of two very violent and bloody options. The US could have chosen between nuclear weapons or invading Japan.

Why invading Japan was not the better option:

1) It would have taken a substantial amount of time:
After the battle of Midway, the United States employed the method of island hopping in order to defeat the Japanese. basically it involved moving from one Pacific island to another, in order to set up bases to bring Japan within range of bombing(1). The plan was more or less successful, however it was a slow process. The Japanese were strongly established on the islands, making it a long and tedious process to dislodge them. The battles of Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, etc. were not simply victories to come by. Simply taking these islands took nearly three years of fighting to acquire. Taking the Japanese mainland would have been a similarly long process. The Japanese military was packed onto the mainland, and the tenacity of this army was legendary. While this is speculation to an extent, it is highly unlikely that the Japanese military would have easily surrendered in the event of an invasion.

What many people don't know is that there was a planned invasion of Japan, called Operation Downfall(2). The plan would have extended the War in the Pacific even longer. The projections for this operation began in the summer of 1945 and continued into 1946. Bear in mind these were only projections, and the actual war could and most likely would have taken much longer.

2) Invading the Japanese mainland would have cost many more lives.
Iwo Jima- 26,038(3)
Guadalcanal- 7,100(4)
Saipan- 16,525(5)
Philippines campaign- 62,000(6)
Solomon islands campaign- 10,600(7)

These numbers are the total allied casualties of different battles/campaigns in the pacific theater. (These include killed and wounded). These numbers are quite high, showing that the Japanese were a very determined and effective fighting force. The other side of the casualty list is staggering. The Japanese deaths from the battles often outnumbered the Allied totals astronomically (Iwo Jima being the exception). After the war was over, 364,748 Americans were either killed or wounded in the pacific (note these are ONLY American casualties)(8) The American leaders knew these numbers, and knew that invading the Japanese homeland would cause them to sky-rocket. The previously mentioned Operation Downfall was projected to be extremely devastating. At its beginning, the estimates were that every hour 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would die(2). This is because the invasion force for the Americas would be large, and the Japanese would be extremely hard to remove. The civilians of Japan would have also been casualties in this venture. The Japanese civilians also had a fighting force called the National Volunteer Combat Force(2). Armed with inadequate weapons, they were meant to add another factor against the Americans against whom they would stand little chance of survival. The casualties form atomic war are devastating, but invading Japan would have been much more costly.

2a) Japanese Military brutality
While this alone doesn't justify the use of atomic weapons, it should be noted that the Japanese military was extremely brutal. They were legendary for their cruel treatment of prisoners, disregard for civilians, and sheer violence. The atrocities of the Japanese army are infamous, particularly in the Rape of Nanking. The Japanese shot innocent civilians, raped numerous women, as well as burning and burying civilians alive.(9) Also disturbing was their treatment of POW's. Japanese prisoners of war were treated very poorly, receiving harsh discipline and little food. The infamous Bataan Death March involved Japanese soldiers forcing POW's to march in extreme heat for many miles. even more terrifying was the use of kamikazes. Kamikaze pilots essentially flew bombs with wings and engines, which they would fly into an enemy ship, killing many at the cost of one pilot. This all adds up to mean that the Japanese were not a peaceful, civilised army that would surrender honorably to save lives. It was either victory or insanely costly defeat.

Why America is justified in using atomic bombs:

3) The Japanese started the war
On December 7th 1941, Japan bombed the American Naval base at Pearl Harbor. Previous to this event, the Americans had enacted several embargoes against Japan in response to their belligerency in the Pacific, which had hurt the Japanese economy. These do not justify attacking soldiers and civilians while war has not been declared. The Japanese became far too aggressive and arrogant in their invasions, and in doing so they made the fatal mistake of attacking America. They bear full responsibility for this action and the war that followed. Yes, the Americans had taken economic action against Japan, however common reason would dictate that this doesn't warrant military attacks of the nature of Pearl Harbour. The Japanese had brought these sanctions upon themselves by unjustly invading Manchuria and other territories in the Pacific. When a nation engages into a war, they must accept that the enemy must do what they can to win. In the face of the staggering resources needed to invade Japan, the Japanese left little choice for America.

4) The Japanese were warned
Before the bombing on Hiroshima occurred, Americans sent out leaflets warning the people of these cities that a new weapon had been created and that they needed to evacuate. On August 1 1945, the inhabitants of Hiroshima received these leaflets and had every opportunity to evacuate as needed.(10) The Japanese had also received the Potsdam Declaration, in which the Allied leaders issued the ultimatum for unconditional surrender on the threat of destruction. The declaration was straight forward and could have been much harsher(11)* Had the Japanese been concerned with their own civilians well being, they would have heeded both warnings. They could have even avoided the entire event from unfolding.

In conclusion, the decision to use atomic weapons was not an easy one. The invasion or the atomic weapons would have been devastating. However, using the weapons was a prudent and justifiable move on the part of the United States. The Japanese brought the war, and the consequences thereof, upon themselves. The US had every right to demand unconditional surrender on Imperial Japan. America may have dropped the bombs, but Japan had been slowly paving the road to that option with years of stubbornness and refusal to surrender. America isn't responsible for the blood of the Japanese civilians lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The government of Japan had their chance to avoid the bombings, and by denying this the government sealed Japan's fate.

I look forward to your argument

Sources
1)http://www.u-s-history.com...
2)http://www.kilroywashere.org...
3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
4)http://militaryhistory.about.com...
5)http://militaryhistory.about.com...
6)http://en.wikipedia.org...(1944%E2%80%9345)
7)http://en.wikipedia.org...
8)http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com...
9)http://www.nanking-massacre.com...
10)http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
11)http://www.princeton.edu...

*actually read the text, it states "We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation"
Anti-atheist

Con

We could of just stopped the war. It destroies all ur arguments. The offsprings that were harmed were numorious! It killed many and none of these arguments work for it. ITs just justifiing murder of kids. The two cities that were bombed weren't even military cities. It wwas the two cities that were the most christian. The Japanise were nazis. The nazis were right

"... Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him, the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has served his country."

- David Lloyd George,
Prime Minister and Statesman,
Great Britain.

"Hitler was right"
- British Attorney General
(Senior Nuremburg Prosecutor)

" I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans' around Roosevelt.

We ignored Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war.
Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right.

He offered us the co-operation of Germany... I feel ashamed and humiliated..."

(British Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross,
Stourbridge, March 16th, 1984)

The Nazis weren't bad
They

*put a stop to massive unemployment;
*ended hyper-inflation;
*restored the self-esteem of the German people (for a few years till the defeat in 1945);
*built the Autobahn;
*laid the technological foundations for modern utilisation of space;
*forced the world to rethink international relations to such an extent that much of Europe has enjoyed peace for over 65 years.

We should of paired up with the nazis! Not bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 2
TheBatman

Pro

A) Hiroshima was a city with military significance(1)
B) Simply stopping the war would have been a foolish and short-sighted move. The Japanese government was dangerous and belligerent. The Japanese resorted to desperate tactics in order to kill American troops (ie kamikazes), and they had no intention of simply accepting a surrender. We were locked into a war with a dangerous, violent, and aggressive enemy. Its is laughable to assume that the Japanese would have simply left America alone after the war.

Anti-West Propganda in Japan was prevalent. The Japanese had no desire for peace or for an end to the war with America. They were in no position to expect us to stop fighting. As I mentioned in the Potsdam Declaration, the japanese could have ended the affair and everyone could have been fine. But they didn't. They started a war, and they should've been prepared to finish it. Your argument is inherently invalid, and one which you provide no base for. I expected more than a mere talking point.

We couldn't just stop the war. By that logic, the soviets had no right to invade Nazi Germany. They should've just stopped and let Hitler regroup. Your reasoning fails on nearly every level.

1)http://www.gojapango.com...
Anti-atheist

Con

The nazis were good. Hitler was fighting the reptiaian aliens!!! [There isn't any evidence for homicidal gas chambers, only gas shelters or disinfection chambers to kill lice that spread Typhus (hence the use of Zyklon B), a major cause of death at the time and the reason for all the bodies seen in the mass graves at Belsen, that were used to convince people of Nazi 'death camps.' The gas chamber myth can easily be seen in the absurdity of the morgues that are passed off as gas chambers at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II, and in the actual mechanics of using gas to kill humans (see Mechanics of Gassing Gas chambers). There also isn't any written evidence for a policy of genocide known as the 'Final Solution'. Other telling evidence is the Persecution of revisionists and the studious avoidance of Forensic examinations relying purely on Eye Witnesses.

The Holocaust story started out as propaganda 1 (see Soap Lampshades Nazi 'gas chamber'), and at the war end served to hide the British Tavistock (Illuminati/Zionist) creation of the war (see: Wars Bormann Himmler Hitler Stalin), along with war and post war crimes (1 2, 3, 4, 5), while it helped create the state of Israel (1948 1), and now helps justify the present genocides in Palestine, & Iraq. It is the main source of Zionist power.1 Also, one of the main uses for the hoax is to maintain: 'Humans can be evil'.
Debate Round No. 3
TheBatman

Pro

Please vot PRO, as I have put forth a legitimate debate against a troll. Don't allow my efforst to be wasted.
Anti-atheist

Con

The bombs killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki (the Dresden bombing killed over 500,000). More than 95% of the casualties were civilians. The war was already won when they dropped them. Part of the Radiation genocide, and creation of the Cold War Hoax.]



Harry Elmer Barnes wrote an essay on a subject never made public by the U.S. government. He was the first Revisionist to explain that Japan had made an offer of surrender, on the same terms as those accepted on V-J Day, six months before the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review (May 10, 1958).

The ends were not military but political. As early as 1948, Churchill wrote in his "History of the Second World War" (Volume VI) :
"It would be false to suppose that the fate of Japan was decided by the atomic bomb."
The American admiral, William A. Leahy, confirmed this in his book, "I was there":
"In my opinion, the use of that barbaric weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not much use in the war against Japan."
And indeed, the emperor of Japan, Hirohito, had already engaged negotiations for the surrender of his country as early as May 21st 1945 with the Soviet Union (which was not yet at war with Japan), through the intermediary of the Japanese minister of foreign affairs and the Soviet ambassador, Malik.
"Prince Konoye was asked get ready to go to Moscow, to negotiate directly with Molotov."
Leahy, the American admiral, concluded (op.cit.): "By being the first to use the atomic bomb, we stooped to the moral level of the barbarians of the Middle Ages...This new and terrible weapon, which is used for an uncivilized war, is a modern barbarity unworthy of Christians."
Thus all those leaders, which a genuine "International Court" made up of neutral countries would have placed with the war criminals alongside Goering and his gang, discovered an unhoped-for alibi with the "gas chambers", the "holocausts" and the "genocides", that could justify, if not eradicate, their own crimes against humanity. The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics by Roger Garaudy.





The Great Hiroshima Cover-Up And the Nuclear Fallout for All of Us Today


http://whale.to...

Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Nimbus328 4 years ago
Nimbus328
I would take the Con position in this debate.

Pro can use the same argument in Round 2 in Round 1 of the new debate, it would be a two round debate.
Posted by dragonb95 4 years ago
dragonb95
I love how con does his last argument in big comic sans with .5 line spaces xD
Posted by TheBatman 4 years ago
TheBatman
I sense a troll somewhere in this debate...and it isn't me....
Posted by Nimbus328 4 years ago
Nimbus328
I have opinions on both sides of this debate. Fascinating topic.
Posted by TheBatman 4 years ago
TheBatman
Sorry for some of these typos. My keyboard is slow an my fingers are fast, so some letters get skipped along the way. Spell check will only get you so far...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
TheBatmanAnti-atheistTied
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: SMH, what a troll debate
Vote Placed by Nyx999 4 years ago
Nyx999
TheBatmanAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: This was a landslide, it was REALLY obvious.
Vote Placed by Nimbus328 4 years ago
Nimbus328
TheBatmanAnti-atheistTied
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: This debate turned out differently than I had hoped.
Vote Placed by dragonb95 4 years ago
dragonb95
TheBatmanAnti-atheistTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: the trolls are coming... they ravage our land and praise jesus and the nazis
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
TheBatmanAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had terrible arguments and basically waited until the end.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
TheBatmanAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I ignored cons final round arguments as pro had no chance to respond. Otherwise con did nothing that supported their resolution.