The Instigator
IveGotUrOuts
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
westernmarch
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Was the U.S. justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

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 1 vote the winner is...
westernmarch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,318 times Debate No: 23101
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

IveGotUrOuts

Pro

I will be arguing that the U.S was justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Round 1 acceptance only

My arguments will be:

1.Preferable to invasion
2.Put a end to the war with Japan which saved lives on both sides
3.Japan's leaders refused to surrender
westernmarch

Con

I agree.

But Pro must be able to defend all these points:

1.Preferable to invasion
2.Put a end to the war with Japan which saved lives on both sides
3.Japan's leaders refused to surrender.

Other then that Pro has the first shots.
Debate Round No. 1
IveGotUrOuts

Pro

Thx to my OPP for excepting this debate and our audience for reviewing it as well.....

Preferable to invasion:

In the National Archives in D.C. hidden away thousands of pages of documents labeled "Top Secret" the plans for Operation Downfall which was the plan for invasion to begin in October 1945. Before 1984 only a few Americans were aware of the elaborate plans that had been prepared. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet

President Truman stated after the war that he had been advised that U.S. casualties could range from 250,000 to one million men. Plus millions of Jap soldiers and civilian deaths were expected. I also need to point out an order given by the Jap war ministry in August 1944 was ordering execution of all U.S. pow's (100,000) if an invasion of the Japan mainland took place. The US had 500,000 Purple Heart medals made for expected casualties. Suffice to say the "bombs" saved lives making it justified.

Put a end to the war with Japan which saved lives on both sides:

"For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asian states alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in 1945 would have produced the deaths of 'upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners."

Japan's leaders refused to surrender:

The Japs would never because of honor. Their emperor would not accept defeat. They were not afraid and even after the bombs were dropped they didn't surrender. They only surrendered because Russia was going to attack them. Fewer Americans died which justifies the bombings as well.
westernmarch

Con

Thx to my OPP for excepting this debate and our audience for reviewing it as well.....

Preferable to invasion:

In the National Archives in D.C. hidden away thousands of pages of documents labeled "Top Secret" the plans for Operation Downfall which was the plan for invasion to begin in October 1945. Before 1984 only a few Americans were aware of the elaborate plans that had been prepared. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet

President Truman stated after the war that he had been advised that U.S. casualties could range from 250,000 to one million men. Plus millions of Jap soldiers and civilian deaths were expected. I also need to point out an order given by the Jap war ministry in August 1944 was ordering execution of all U.S. pow's (100,000) if an invasion of the Japan mainland took place. The US had 500,000 Purple Heart medals made for expected casualties. Suffice to say the "bombs" saved lives making it justified.

==========

What? I know an invasion would be deadly, but I doubt it would cause that many deaths.
It seems like the Japanese Government would try to get people to fight, but, even with honor, I doubt many people would go through with the plan.

=======

Put a end to the war with Japan which saved lives on both sides:

"For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asian states alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in 1945 would have produced the deaths of 'upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners."

==========

Sources?
========
Japan's leaders refused to surrender:

The Japs would never because of honor. Their emperor would not accept defeat. They were not afraid and even after the bombs were dropped they didn't surrender. They only surrendered because Russia was going to attack them. Fewer Americans died which justifies the bombings as well.

=======

This is a stereotype.
Debate Round No. 2
IveGotUrOuts

Pro

This is directly from my source page:
In the first invasion - code named Operation Olympic - American combat troops would land on Japan by amphibious assault during the early morning hours of November 1, 1945 - 50 years ago. Fourteen combat divisions of soldiers and Marines would land on heavily fortified and defended Kyushu, the southernmost of the Japanese home islands, after an unprecedented naval and aerial bombardment.

The second invasion on March 1, 1946 - code named Operation Coronet - would send at least 22 divisions against 1 million Japanese defenders on the main island of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain. It's goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan. With the exception of a part of the British Pacific Fleet, Operation Downfall was to be a strictly American operation. It called for using the entire Marine Corps, the entire Pacific Navy, elements of the 7th Army Air Force, the 8 Air Force (recently redeployed from Europe), 10th Air Force and the American Far Eastern Air Force. More than 1.5 million combat soldiers, with 3 million more in support or more than 40% of all servicemen still in uniform in 1945 - would be directly involved in the two amphibious assaults. Casualties were expected to be extremely heavy.

Admiral Leahy estimated that 250,000 Americans killed on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby chief of intelligence for General MacArthur estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

The American people certainly would have supported such tactics at the time, especially as Japanese Imperial General Headquarters issued orders a month later, provided to us courtesy of code-breaking (MAGIC), to murder all Allied prisoners of war, all interned Allied civilians, and all other Allied civilians Japanese forces could catch in occupied China, the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), Malaya, etc., starting with the impending British invasion of Malaya in late September 1945. The Imperial Japanese Army was every bit as evil as the Nazi SS, and more lethal. They'd probably have killed at least an additional 50 million people, more than had died in all of World War Two to that point, before Allied armies could eliminate Japanese forces overseas.

The horror would not have stopped there. An estimated ONE THIRD of the Japanese people (25-30 million) would have died of starvation, disease, poison gas and conventional weapons during a prolonged ground conquest of Japan. The Japanese Army planned on locking up the Emperor, seizing power and fighting to the bitter end once the US invasion started. Thank God for the atom bomb - killing 150,000 - 200,000 Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved 75-80 million lives. One of whom would have been the writer's father, an infantry lieutenant who survived Okinawa. [1]

Conclusion:
Some believe that "the bombs" saved lives, some do not. 418,500 Americans and 3100,000 Japanese (including some who were brought into from the surrounding Asian countries), 72,000,000(estimate I am sure cant prove or disprove it) people in the world died during WW2. Every life that was lost was precious and irreplaceable. Those who lost lives through the battle must have fought believing and proud of the country as well as being a member of a family.

History always has multiple sides of the stories. "What if" in history is rarely meaningful. Every nation has the mission to promote the best interest of the nation and its constituents. 20th century was where that became prominent in the deadliest form of armed might. We can only try to track down the facts by documents. Nobody involved would be free from strong emotions or guilt. Yes or No should be left to the judgment of each person.

[1]http://www.freerepublic.com...
westernmarch

Con

westernmarch forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
IveGotUrOuts

Pro

IveGotUrOuts forfeited this round.
westernmarch

Con

westernmarch forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
IveGotUrOuts

Pro

IveGotUrOuts forfeited this round.
westernmarch

Con

westernmarch forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
IveGotUrOutswesternmarchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The FF wasn't good for either side, and this can hardly be called a debate, but I gave one conduct to Con because he didn't plagiarize like Pro did.