The Instigator
m_deckman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Was attacking the Japanese with the Atomic Bomb a good idea?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 64041
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

m_deckman

Pro

Attacking the Japanese was the right thing to do in the circumstances of WW2. If American had invaded Japan instead, close to 1,000,000 lives would have been lost. The Atomic Bomb saved about 600,000 of those lives. The Japanese would not surrender in this war. They were raised to fight to the death for their country. There are many accounts of Japanese suicide bomber that killed themselves for their country and to kill American soldiers. There is video footage of a man throwing his three children off of a cliff and then jumping off himself. Many Japanese did this and also committed other forms of suicide because they believed that they were supporting their country and that it would be better than being captured by an American soldier during an invasion. When you put together all of these details, The idea off setting off a bomb that would kill people who were already going to commit suicide, and save many of your own people's lives, doesn't sound like the worst. If you want to counter argument with the statement, "Not all Japanese were like the people you are explaining," I can prove you wrong. A battle that took place on the Marianas Islands consisted of about 2600 troops. At the end of the battle, only 8 Japanese soldiers decided not to give up their lives for their country. The Japanese were much like terrorists, because they were a very nationalistic nation.
Emilrose

Con

Accepted.

As Pro has only provided a one hour time period in between debates I will make my initial argument brief.

Why The Nuclear Bombing of Japan Was Not A Good Idea

Taking place on August 6th, 1945--the U.S attacked the Japanese city of Hiroshima with a nuclear bomb. This bomb was not necessary due to the fact that Japan had already been defeated military in June--two months prior to the bombing. The country posed no real threat to America and the chances of Japan ever winning its war with the U.S was extremely unlikely.

After the nuclear weapon had been dropped on Hiroshima, around 90,000 died immediately. Wwhile another 40,000 were seriously imjured--many of whom later died from radiation sickness. Three days after the nuclear attack on Hiroshima the U.S then decided to test its nuclear on the city of Nagasaki. Where 37,000 got killed and another 43,000 civilians injured. With the two cities combined an estimated 200,000 people died.

As I alluded to previously, the main reasons why these nuclear attacks were not neccesary is because (1.) Japan posed no great threat. (2.) They were already being defeated. (3.) The World War was practically over. (4.) Perhaps most importantly, the people targeted were civilians and not military outfits.

The U.S was did not need to use the two nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. Instead, it's largey regarded that the U.S was in fact merely exercising its power and experimenting with its newly made nuclear ability.
Debate Round No. 1
m_deckman

Pro

m_deckman forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Con

As Pro as offered no rebuttals or clarification of argument: I will continue with my own.

Rebuttals:

"Attacking the Japanese was the right thing to do in the circumstances of WW2".

In round one you expound mildy on this statement but still not do not offer any definitive explanation or proof of it being "the right thing to do". As stated within my opening argument--attacking two cities with nuclear bombs and killing a combined 200,000 civilians and causing mass suffering through radiation--when you have already defeated the opposition militarily --simply suggests otherwise.

"The Japanese would not surrender in this war".

Again, this claim is largely disaproved due to the fact that months prior to Hiroshima and Nabasaki bombings Japan outlined a form of surrender and conceeded peace proposals. The Japanese stated that they were prepared to accept ceasefire and "surrender"--providing that the U.S agree to the continuation of Emperor Hirohito's reign.



"The idea off setting off a bomb that would kill people who were already going to commit suicide, and save many of your own people's lives, doesn't sound like the worst".

These were people that were not already going to commit suicide or particpate in any attacks on U.S personnel. In fact they were everyday civilians--many of them workers within the city.


In addition, U.S lives did not have to be saved as they were under no immediate threat from Japaon. As noted, the Japanese military had essentially lost all its capacity and the war was practically over.

To expand on previous arguments: Because the Japanese military had been defeated, the only logical reason for U.S nuclear attack was the eagerness to "try out" its new nuclear nuclear capability--which was entirely the first of its kind. Naturally proving its power not only to Japon but to the international stage was also a contributing factor.



Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by jungleseu 2 years ago
jungleseu
Japan still had troops in Maturia and China...1 million of them. So to say that the Japanese military was defeated in 1945 is a myth. They could still strike at America and based on their racial ideology they would have fought America to their last man. Also the civilion poulation was willing to commit great sacrifice to support Japanese racial ideology. There was a fear that Japan would turn its nation into sucide bombers and attack the USA. Considereing the kamiaze this was likely scinareo.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
@cheyennebodie

As I stated within the debate--Japan were prepared to agree to a surrender providing that they maintain their emperor. They'd been defeated in terms of military, so again it was not necessary.

Using a largely untested nuclear bomb on civilian population does simply constitute as a "good idea". The vast majority killed were civilians--and then went on over a period of time due to radiation sickness.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Like general Patton said. " A war is not over for America till the enemy says it is over. That was what was wrong with the armistice in WW1. No one actually won, and the structure in Germany that started the war was still in place. And it resurrected a few years later with Hitler.

Look at the problems we have with North Korea now because we called a truce instead of defeating communism. It has even raised its ugly head in America called liberalism.
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
"to attack" cannot be an idea. It can be an idea to attack something but the attacking itself cannot be an idea.
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
Attacking is not an idea, attacking is a verb.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
m_deckmanEmilroseTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by DavidMGold 2 years ago
DavidMGold
m_deckmanEmilroseTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the Pro side of this debate, but clearly pro failed to make the case.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
m_deckmanEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
m_deckmanEmilroseTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff