The Instigator
DrStrangeLuv
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
PuppetGod
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The use of the atom bomb on Japan was the right choice during WWII

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...
DrStrangeLuv
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,634 times Debate No: 13467
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

DrStrangeLuv

Pro

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II was the right course of action. I contend that alternative means of ending the war would have resulted, ultimately, in far greater fatalities, thus being a less effective method than the use of nuclear weapons. I will wait for my opponent to begin with his/her argument. Thank you.
PuppetGod

Con

Thank you for posting this debate. As this is my first "Debate.com" debate, i will begin this debate in the National Forensics Leagues format for Lincoln-Douglas debate, with a general value for my argument, a criterion to achieve my value, and several contentions to support my criterion and ultimately my value. If this format is not plausible for a debate.com debate, let me know and i'll adjust my second round argument to better fit my opponents format, but for now, here it is.

Value: Life
My value in this debate is life. Not only the sanctity of life itself, but the idea that life should never be wasted, regardless of intent or well-meaning. Life is a value that cannot be challenged for the fact that it allows for all other values; justice, peace, social welfare, etc. If we do not value life itself, then we as a society have no standards at which to hold ourselves accountable as human beings; for we find not only other's lives unimportant, but our own as well. And in that moment where our own lives being to lose meaning, we are no longer a society of clear-thinking, sane people, but of unchained sociopaths who unscruptoulously murder on a whim.

Criterion: Valuing society over personal political gains
To value society as a whole is to include every nation, on every continent, in the entire world. Most political powers ofen lose sight of the fact that even one weak link in the chain can cause the whole interdependent system to fail. So far we have managed to bypass almost all of Africa as a whole, but how many more nations must suffer for another to become more powerful? In this specific debate, the decision to drop the bombs on highly populated, almost completely civilian areas was undoubtedly more driven by political goals than thought about life or society's well being.

Contention 1: That The United States could have demonstrated the destructive power of the atomic bomb with far fewer casualties.

To justify the dropping of the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States pointed out that there were "important" military installations within the city limits, and regardeless of the fact that civilians outnumbered military personel 5 or 6 to 1. This argument is neither justifiable nor rational. The same "shock-and-awe" effect could have been achieved if the bomb had been detonated over tokyo harbor, with a fraction of the casualties. On top of this, almost all of the Manhattan Project scientists, the very men and women who created this super weapon, advised a showcase of the weapon's power in an isolated area, as to minimize casualties.

Contention 2: The bombings were fueled by a desire to intimidate the Soviet Union.

The Japanese in 1945, were broken. Over 60% percent of their cities had been devastated by near-daily bombings from American aircraft. Intercepted transmissions between the Japanese and the Soviets told the United States that the Japanese were seeking a "conditional" surrender, but American policy makes would have none of it. They wanted to solidify their control and power-base over the pacific and the entire political world, so unconditional surrender would be the only option. Expectedly, Japan could not agree to this, seeing as how it still had at least somewhat of a threatening military force able to at the very least defend againt invasion. The United States itself forced its own hand into dropping atomic bombs on a country ready for any reasonable surrender.

And with that, i open the floor to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

Thank you for accepting, Con. I am not familiar with the National Forensics League's style of debates, but I will try to organize my arguments as clearly as possible. I saw your comment, and yes, this debate is about Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically.

========
Counter
========

A) Contention 1 Counter

1)"To justify the dropping of the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States pointed out that there were "important" military installations within the city limits and regardless of the fact that civilians outnumbered military personnel 5 or 6 to 1."
--- It was determined by US intelligence that while Hiroshima's population was mostly civilian, the military infrastructure of the city was mainly untouched by US air raids, and thus would better demonstrate the devastation of the atomic bomb [1].

2) Tokyo Harbor would not have been an ideal spot to use the atomic bomb on, since most of it was devastated by American air raids by 1945 [2]. It may not have convinced the Japanese military to surrender if this target was chosen since the full power of the weapon could not be observed.

3) From a logical standpoint, detonating the atom bomb in an isolated area would not have given the Japanese a clear idea of the power of the weapon. It seems foolish to ask the Japanese to send delegates to observe the weapon being detonated, or even worse, to send video to them. I think personal and eye witness accounts of the detonation and actual destruction caused by the bomb were monumental in the Japanese surrender.

B) Contention 2 Counter

1) "The Japanese in 1945, were broken. " followed by "Expectedly, Japan could not agree to this, seeing as how it still had at least somewhat of a threatening military force able to at the very least defend against invasion." Shows a complete lack of consistency on my opponents behalf. How can they be broken and still capable of threatening military force?

2) "Intercepted transmissions between the Japanese and the Soviets told the United States that the Japanese were seeking a "conditional" surrender, but American policy makes would have none of it."
a) Opponent shows no citation.
b) Even if this was true, why would the US trust Soviet radio transmissions?
c) Why wouldn't Japan send these transmissions directly to the US?

3) "They wanted to solidify their control and power-base over the pacific and the entire political world, so unconditional surrender would be the only option."
---Many reasons can be cited for the want of unconditional surrender [3], and I concede that part of it was to form a power base in the Pacific. But with the perceived threat of communism and the very costly war Japan incited on the US, can you consider this to be a bad thing? With the total war that Japan waged against America and when faced with complete annihilation I believe unconditional surrender was very generous of the US, especially considering that post war Japan was treated exceptionally well.

=========
Contentions
=========

In addition to the counters I have provided to my opponent I would also like to add that:

1) Japan was a nation willing to defend to the last man, woman and child. Causalities have been predicted by some to be in the millions, with fatalities in the hundreds of thousands [4]. The bombs dropped saved lives, and ended an otherwise ferocious war.

2) The bombing of civilians should be considered a moot point after the Japanese expressed their full commitment to a total war. The use of kamikaze, the total war waged in the province of Manchuria, and the atrocities committed in cities such as Nanking show this.

3) Japan should not be sympathized for. It was warned ahead of time of the destructive force awaiting it, and still rejected surrender. It did this twice. Add to this the fact that it was in no position to barter a surrender, that it had started the war and was more than willing to fight to the death and one can see clearly how very justified the dropping of the bombs were.

I await rebuttal.

[1] http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp...
[2] http://www.metro.tokyo.jp...
[3] http://www.essortment.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
PuppetGod

Con

PuppetGod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

Since Con forfeits round, I will also. If con decides to continue we can pick up from where we left off. Until then I accept him as ceding to my contentions.

Vote Pro
PuppetGod

Con

PuppetGod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

Okay well I guess its a good thing I made this 5 rounds lol.

but seriously, if I receive no counter I claim victory.
PuppetGod

Con

PuppetGod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

DrStrangeLuv forfeited this round.
PuppetGod

Con

PuppetGod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
I rather let a guilty man free then hang an innocent man. Ethical choices tend to be better then "utilitarian" choices based on unforeseen consequences. Let soldiers die over wars, not civilians.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Vote bomb DrStrangeLuv :P
Con forfeited the rounds = you accept the Pro's arguments
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
thx liquid, that means a lot to me.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Nice etiquette pro.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
What is most interesting about this topic is, it's the only case of nuclear weapons ever being used. Nuclear weapons truly are a deterrent for states.
Posted by PuppetGod 6 years ago
PuppetGod
well 1st Lord, just out of curiosity do you agree that the bombs needed to be used or the fact that they needed to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? At this point i'm arguing that there were more acceptable targets in the place of highly populated civilian cities
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Good luck, Pro; I agree with you, insofar as you've stated your points.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
DrStrangeLuvPuppetGodTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 6 years ago
Lightkeeper
DrStrangeLuvPuppetGodTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30