The Instigator
ElCoyote
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
lenamaria1123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Was it a Good Idea to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japn?

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 2 votes the winner is...
ElCoyote
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 55146
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

ElCoyote

Pro

I believe it was a good idea because not only did the bombs finally force Japan to submission it actually saved the lives of many American as well as Japanese lives.

1. If we would have invaded and Operation Downfall was approved then the estimated amount of casualties would have been;
1a: "An April 1945 report projected casualties of 1,202,005"including 314,619 killed and missing"in Operations Olympic and Coronet, and more if either of the campaigns lasted more than 90 days "
1b: "To put these numbers in some perspective, the losses for the Normandy invasion, from D-Day through the first 48 days of combat in Europe, were 63,360"
1c: "atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. Instantly, 70,000 Japanese citizens were vaporized."
1d:"a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, where 80,000 Japanese people perished."
While these numbers are very large they are no where near the amount of deaths that would have been lost if the United States would've invaded Japan.

(1) http://www.airforcemag.com......
(1) http://www.ushistory.org......

2. Not to mention that Japan even though on the defensive still had an extremly large army ready to defend the Homeland;
2a:"It still had 4,965,000 regular army troops and more in the paramilitary reserves."

2b. Even the woman and the children of Japan were trained in some way to fight the American forces
2b:"Old men, women, and children were trained with hand grenades, swords, and bamboo spears and were ready to strap explosives to their bodies and throw themselves under advancing tanks."
Meaning that the U.S military would have to be forced to fire upon women and children in order for themselves to stay alive which would result in many casualties.

(2) http://www.airforcemag.com......

3. We also gave them a chance to surrender. We gave them fair warning that if they did not surrender they would be destroyed
3a:"First, an Allied demand for an immediate unconditional surrender was made to the leadership in Japan. Although the demand stated that refusal would result in total destruction"
3b:"The Japanese military command rejected the request for unconditional surrender"

(3) http://www.ushistory.org......
lenamaria1123

Con

The debate of whether it is a 'good idea' or not to drop the atomic bombs, not one, but two, on Japan, spelled 'JAPAN', note the second 'A' is simple. There has been much prior dispute over the issue. According to Dictionary.com the word 'good' means "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious".
I understand that war as a whole is not good. However we did not bomb the people that were attacking us, the soldiers, the commanding officers, the Emperor, no instead, we bombed their families. We bombed the families, neighbors, friends, schoolmates, we bombed the innocent. Those people weren't killers, they didn't attack, they didn't cause Pearl Harbor, they simply lived their lives. They had their way of life, enjoyed their culture, and enjoyed their healthy children. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely unnecessary.
Debate Round No. 1
ElCoyote

Pro

" we bombed their families. We bombed the families, neighbors, friends, schoolmates, we bombed the innocent."
That isn't true the innocent wouldn't have been trained to fight and kill soldiers. The reason we dropped the bombs was because of them the cilvilians. If your fighting in a battle you do everything you can to stay alive meaning you fight and kill enemy soldiers and officers but it also means you kill women charging at you with spears and children with bombs strapped to their chests.

And your right they didn't attack because we didn't give them the chance as stated in Round 1 the casualties from the bombs combined was lower than an Mainland invasion of Japan.
lenamaria1123

Con

lenamaria1123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ElCoyote

Pro

Extend Arguments
lenamaria1123

Con

lenamaria1123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Pokemonzr 2 years ago
Pokemonzr
ElCoyotelenamaria1123Tied
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: Con forfeits, conduct goes to Con. S&G was tied. Pro had better arguments, and Con had no sources. Good job on both sides, but Con, use better time management so it doesn't auto-forfeit, which happens to me very often.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
ElCoyotelenamaria1123Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF