The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points

Was the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 529 times Debate No: 100887
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military units were nearby, and the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. It was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hiroshima was also a communication center and an area to assemble their troops. Nagasaki was a city that supplied ships, military equipment, and other war materials. It would make a good place for America to attack but with an Atomic bomb is too extreme. America should have only taken out their base with smaller bombs this way they dont killing thousands in the process. Many of the people who survive the bombing were deformed, and dehumanized. Most of the survivors had radiation poisoning and grew tumors on their skins. Not only people was affected, houses and buildings were destroyed and people who survived the bombing basically had nowhere to shelter themselves.


First I will be deconstructing Con's arguments:

1. An Atomic Bomb is too extreme.

Not only did Con concede the fact that these places were prime targets for military attack, but also put the reason for NOT bombing as the death/casualty toll. This is flawed. If Con is going to put the correct military action in the hands of the this toll, then Con must stand on the side of reality. The reality is:
"The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that an invasion of Japan"s home islands would result in approximately 1.2 million total American casualties, with 267,000 killed...William Shockley for the staff of Secretary of War Henry Stimson estimated that the invasion of Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese deaths...the invasion of Japan could have resulted in the death of twice as many Americans as had already been killed in the European and Pacific theaters of WWII up to that time!"[1]
So if Con is to stand with the human life preservation argument then Con must prove this to be false.

2. Houses and building were destroyed...

This is, essentially, an extension of the human life preservation argument with a little bit of quality of life preservation as well. Even with the casualties that resulted after the bombings, which were at least 200,000,[2] the bombs were justified. In fact, according to the statistic I presented in my first point by William Shockley, invading the Japanese country would have exaggerated the death tolls 27 TIMES OVER. That is assuming that only the lowest and most hopeful predictions by Shockley would have come to be truth. Don't believe my logical and mathematical evidence? Have a direct quote: "It"s impossible to know how many people would have perished if allied forces invaded would have been many, many times greater than the 200,000+ people that died from the atomic bombings."[2] Yes Zachary Keck, writer of the article that quote came from, it would have.
This comes down to the human life preservation argument as well; still I have shown that the status quo was better according to Con's own scale.

Now let's move on to my specific arguments:

1. The Japan would NOT have Surrendered

It puzzles me that people that have an anti-war/violence outlook, such as I, can have such a stubborn view of this. Not only does logic and reason explain and justify what happened, the facts do as well.

a. Logic and Reason
If Japan was about to surrender or would have surrendered at the beginning of the invasion or whatever reason, why did they still maintain military aggression after the first bomb was dropped? If the preceding arguments were true then wouldn't this only bring about a hastier surrender by the Japanese? It would have, but it did not happen and I will explain why. First off, the culture of Japan is and was vastly different than America. Japan had an honor system that honored people who died in combat, as did America; but Japan had taken it a step further and glorified it. They viewed it as one of the highest achievements one could attain. So high that if one were to fail and NOT die, they were encouraged to KILL THEMSELVES. Clearly these people of this period were willing to fight to the end, no matter the odds. Second, Japan's government worked differently than ours. Their government was practically separated into two groups, the people and the military. The people part wanted to surrender, they did not see any point in continuing this sort of suicide by war. On the other hand, the military side retained to their strict principles of honor.
b. Facts
"Hiroshima was the latest bombing victim, albeit with a terrifying new weapon. However, Japanese forces still retained several divisions in Kyushu that prepared for an American invasion."[3] This means that it took not one, but two atomic bombs to only MOSTLY sway the Japanese, because with a surrender they would not need to prepare for an invasion.
"Japan"s leadership quickly sent a telegram to their ambassador in Moscow, hoping to appeal to Stalin for help. (After the bombing)

Instead of offering aid, on Aug. 8, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov read to Japan"s ambassador a declaration of war.

The Soviets invaded Japan-held Manchuria on Aug. 9. The same day, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

Even after the bombs and the Soviet invasion, some of Japan"s hawks weren"t ready to stop fighting, according to some historians."[3] Another example of how the Japanese were still not ready to surrender, they still wanted to stick to their honor, why? Because surrender meant an unhonorable death and combat meant an honorable one.

2. The Atomic Bombs Ironically Saved Countless Lives

This is just me pulling my arguments in response into Con to my case, making it more seamless and easy to understand.

3. The Atomic Bomb Stopped the Atomic Bombs to Follow

There is no doubt that these bombs are horrific. I think any reasonable person would agree and I, being more pacifist as I stated earlier, am especially disgusted at the events that happened throughout the war on BOTH sides. But what if I were to suppose a silver lining? Not just the one about saving vast numbers of lives but another, more hidden, benefit. Because of the fact that the whole world was metaphorically and all too near literally shaken by these bombs, we have seen less of them. Many western nations and even ones that we disagree with understand that NO ONE should have that kind of power and that we should strive towards other solutions. There is no question that the only two events of nuclear weapons use that happened in the same war is the reason that nuclear disarmament is prevalent now. Without this definitive display of power in Japan, people would have no experiences to justify getting rid of such horrible and unneeded means of mass destruction and death. ATTENTION: This is not to say that I'm glad hundreds of thousands of people died, this is my irrational, and annoying as all heck, optimistic tiny little voice screaming to find some kind of glimmering silver lining.

Thank you for your time!

Debate Round No. 1


Heres my response to ur number 1: Japan was going to surrender because even though there slogan is fight to their death, Russia, one of the most powerful countries, was already in war with Japan if we attacked Japan like how they attacked us them they would have lost without using the atomic bomb.

Heres my argument: Not only Japan had to deal with the soviets they also had to deal with America. Because the bomb is very dangerous and unstable, the atomic bomb is a cheat weapon that can destroy a country if had enough. No one should have the control of a weapon of mass destruction. Due to the attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan still has anger and animosity. Although it did end WW2, it started another war, the Cold War. It was the dropping of the bomb and people saw how dangerous it can be and take advantage of that like the Soviets. If 200,000 Japanese death isn't terrorism to Japan, then 911 shouldn't be one.


I could dismiss Con's arguments right off the bat because none of them have citations supporting them, while mine do. Con's source is himself while my sources are experts of the field and topic at question. Experts trump random anonymous person on the internet.

1. The Japanese would NOT have Surrendered

a. This is not their slogan, not their mantra, not even their religion. This was their cult like thinking that allowed them to have such success on the battlefield up to this point. If a soldier isn't afraid of death, what is stopping them except for death itself?It is widely believed by historians that the Japanese were going to lose the war. [1,2] This still did not stop them, more credit to the argument of their dedication and the argument that they would not have surrendered.
Con didn't answer any of my arguments substantially, especially the crux of this one. If they were going to surrender, why didn't they after the first bomb dropped?

b. "Not only Japan had to deal with the soviets they also had to deal with America." As I explained earlier, most Japanese knew they were the losers of the war.
"the atomic bomb is a cheat weapon that can destroy a country if had enough." Two things wrong with this argument. First, there is no "cheating" in war, even the war laws are practically arbitrary and only the losing side ever has to pay for their "crimes." Secondly, literally any destructive force can destroy a country if one has enough of said force. This is why water erodes stone over time, why the tectonic plates morph the earth constantly. This is not me claiming the atomic bomb is not a disgustingly powerful weapon, this is me pointing out that this argument is flawed and shows no real purpose other than to explain Con's personal views.

2. "No one should have the control of a weapon of mass destruction."
I made this argument and I framed it so that this was the silver lining, without the use of atomic bombs in this case it is very unlikely nuclear disarmament would take place. And from an objective and purely mathematical point of view, the atomic bomb could have been much worse. Imagine dropping it on heavily populated areas like New York, New York. It would easily cause exponentially more damage to human life and dollar sum.

3. "It caused the Cold War"
Firstly, I'd like to address that whether or not Japan still has anger and animosity doesn't matter. That proves nothing in whether it was justified or necessary. Con then goes on to claim that this was the start of the Cold War! A ridiculous claim to say the least. The main reasons are as follows:
"*American fear of communist attack

* Truman"s dislike of Stalin

* USSR"s fear of the American"s atomic bomb

* USSR"s dislike of capitalism

* USSR"s actions in the Soviet zone of Germany

* America"s refusal to share nuclear secrets

* USSR"s expansion west into Eastern Europe + broken election promises

* USSR"s fear of American attack

* USSR"s need for a secure western border

* USSR"s aim of spreading world communism"[4]

As you can see the use of atomic weaponry is not on the list. This war was almost completely a disagreement on the ideological perspective, in my opinion. But that is neither here nor there and is completely irrelevant.

"It was the dropping of the bomb and people saw how dangerous it can be and take advantage of that like the Soviets." No citations to back this up, I used the same reasoning (dropping of the bombs) as why people DISLIKED and started nuclear disarmament and I had professionals to back me up.

4. The bombs were not an act of terrorism
This is absolutely ludicrous. The bombs were not a terrorist action. PEARL HARBOR was a terrorist action. The definition of terrorist attack, "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. coup de main, surprise attack." From
The bombs were a MILITARY attack, while Pearl Harbor was not, because we were not at war at the time. To compare the atomic bombs to 9/11 is extremely flawed to the point that it is almost insulting. There is no terrorism in war, and if there was, I would hope Con would agree that HITLER, the guy that was on a genocidal rampage of the Jews, was the terrorist and NOT the United States.

Bring citations and logical arguments based in fact. I apologize for this if you happen to be Japanese because it seems like you are writing from an oddly personal perspective.

Debate Round No. 2


First of i got to say Pro is restating basically everything he said before and he criticized me for not "citing". Unlike this retard, I dont need to grab other peoples idea off the web, Im logical and original. Obviously pro hasn't graduated from high school yet as proven in his comebacks.

My argument :
The dropping of the atomic bomb in World War II was heard all over the world and the start of the Cold War arms race influenced many aspects of life for the American people politically and socially. As soon as the Soviet Union had their hands on the Atomic bomb, they would consider to be the second superpower country of the world. Since both countries knew what the bombs could do, they could challenge each other and destroy the world. Because of that they had competition of arms races and space races to prove they're better than the other. The effects of the Cold War was that all of America were in paranoia about if they're going to be hit by the atomic bombs. Americans were so paranoid, that the veiwed others who was out of the ordinary, as communists or spies.


I restated everything and further explained things because Con hasn't made any arguments that stand up to basic scrutiny. I've gone through all of Con's arguments and disproven them with facts and interpretations by experts in the field.

"Unlike this retard, I dont need to grab other peoples idea off the web, Im logical and original."
Well, I actually had this thought when we talked about it in primary school and middle school. "Unlike this retard," I form what I think is correct from the information by authoritative sources (sources that have a higher level of knowledge and understanding on the subject at hand) and interpreting the data myself. I honestly don't know what Con expected on a formal debating website.

Actually, you are correct, I haven't graduated high school. What happened was I dropped out half way through my sophomore year from a rigorous private school, Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence, KS, because I wasn't having enough intellectual stimulation. I immediately went and took the GED exams that represent all the knowledge needed to pass high school. I didn't study and I aced all of them first time around. I don't like to brag, but since Con is making the argument that I am intellectually retarded, I had to present a counterpoint.

Now we move on from the mess of what that, grammatically and logically, mess of ad hominems and lack of critical thinking and to Con's actual "arguments."

"The dropping of the atomic bomb in World War II was heard all over the world and the start of the Cold War arms race influenced many aspects of life for the American people politically and socially." I agree because these two facts are true. However, Con is undoubtedly trying to draw a connection between them, for which there are none. I explained the reasons why the Cold War happened and the bombings were not one of them.

"Since both countries knew what the bombs could do, they could challenge each other and destroy the world." No, this was certainly not possible. I'm not sure if Con is arguing that they would team up and destroy the planet or get so mad at each other they fire at one another and destroy the planet that way. Either way, Con doesn't present any information that substantiates this idea.

Con finished by explaining the effects of the Cold War in America. While I generally agree with them, Con doesn't prove anything with this. Con would have to draw a direct cause and effect relationship between the bombings and the Cold War, which he has failed to do.

Thank you for bearing this debate, for whatever poor soul is still reading this, and please vote Pro.
One, because Con was abusive and completely out of line.
Two, because I had the better arguments, sources, logic, and reason.
Debate Round No. 3


"Two, because I had the better arguments, sources, logic, and reason."
Is it that if you waste your last round instead backing your statement up, you didn't do much but insult me.

Now, the atomic bomb was INVENTED in the USA. if the bomb wasn't dropped then the world might, not know how powerful the bomb was, therefore, the arms race and the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION wouldn't have been problems. The MAD and the red scarce gave people fear of anything ordinary. The Red Scarce also helped discriminate against gays and minorities for being different. To summon things up, the bomb that dropped influenced the Cold War and MAD scarce.


"Is it that if you waste your last round instead backing your statement up, you didn't do much but insult me."

Con is complaining that I wasted my last round and I didn't back my statements up while Con is the one with literally zero citations or sources to back their arguments up.
Con talks how I insulted him. This is ridiculous, Con had used personal attacks in their last speech calling me a retard and insinuating that I was unintelligent.

I am not going to waste any more time on arguments that aren't backed up by anything but Con's opinions.
Please vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is not required to provide an RFD.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: FuzzyCatPotato// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Sources matter. Adding conduct to offset the RFD-less vote below.

[*Reason for removal*] While this debate does not require an RFD, counter voting is strictly prohibited.
Posted by SmartNigga 10 months ago
wow i would so agree and respect some dickrider named skysky16
Posted by SkySky16 10 months ago
Bahahaha when people actually started voting they are all voting for me and SmartNigga is salty af
Posted by DawsonBruno 10 months ago
SmartNigga, debates are made to be debated (Facepalm). If you ask a historical question, obviously you should cite your sources and expect a little research. Opinions need to be verified because a lot of people state their opinion with little to no proof (like you Con).
Posted by SmartNigga 10 months ago
oh and the link u put up are secondary sources that other people made I see u dont have ur own opinion and base facts on not whats real but whats online.
Posted by SkySky16 10 months ago
I didn't say it didn't kill people, one of my main arguments was that it killed less people than the alternative.
I never said that the bombings were good, I just explained why I, and many other experts in the field, believe was necessary.
I didn't say war crime punishments were fair and I have the same opinion on war crime punishments. The winners are never convicted. However, I would argue that the atomic bombing were not war crimes but the preceding fire bombings were.
I honestly think the whole "laws of war" is illpredicated on the notion that people will follow rules during a war.
The US didn't nuke them because of pearl harbor, please read my arguments.
Posted by SmartNigga 10 months ago
BOY how you going to say the dropping of the atomic bomb didn't kill people, and didn't influence the Cold War. Heres the hypocrisy, a plane crashes into 2 tower=terrorist attack. America bombs 2 city and kills 30000 people=patriotism. The thing is that Japan had to pay for the war crimes an not America, Japan attacks a harbor, 4 years later America nukes 2 cities in Japan.
Posted by SmartNigga 10 months ago
Alex is a stupid nigger
Posted by Alex15757 10 months ago
Okay as a strong Military and 20th history expert, I'm going to have to side with the pro on this one, here are the reasons why:
1) Although the Con had some arguments such as it started the cold war( which is wrong because it didn't do that) it just comes down to alternative history. Here I'll spell it out for you:
Ok lets say U.S. forces land in Japan, lets compare it to the Okinawa campaign were 1/3 of all landing forces died. That would mean by the end of the invasion of Japan about 7-11 million Americans would die along with 9/10 of the Civilian population. ( btw these numbers are based off of how furiously the Japs fought on Okinawa). Also the Soviets would invade from the north, basically would be splitting the country into 2 halfs much like Korea in the 50s. In our timeline the U.S. allowed for Japan to dismantle the military but with the Soviets up north the U.S. wouldn't allow the military to be disbanded.
2) Deaths. Ok let me get this off right now: far ,FAR, FAR, more people died in the Fire bombings of Tokyo then both Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined, so with this we could assume FAR FAR FAR more people are going to die in Operation Down Fall then if the Nukes would be dropped. So yes this statement right here: "see the problem is ur playing if then statements you cant know how much people would die if we didn't drop the bomb, because u dont know" is wrong.

Jez "SmartNigga" do some research for once, not reading a High School textbook and saying "Yes, I know everything about this topic, let me go debate some people onlin without any sources"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DawsonBruno 10 months ago
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: SmartNigga fails to cite any evidence of his arguments. He also asks for me to help him win. After reading his crappy arguments, and being salty that Pro actually knows what he is talking about, I have decided to vote the way every person reading this should vote: for Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
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:31