The Instigator
sviridovt
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
2015071
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Was the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 53689
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

sviridovt

Con

First round is for acceptances only.

First round: Acceptance
Second round: Opening statement (no rebuttals)
Third round: Rebuttal
Fourth round: Rebuttal/Closing statement

---
Background
---

In August 1945 the US has threatened to use weapons of mass destruction on Japan if they did not surrender, they didnt leading them to bomb Hiroshima. After issuing the same threat, and receiving no reply following the bombings, US dropped a bomb on Nagasaki after which they again issued the same threat (despite the US not having any more nuclear weapons capable of attacking Japan) which caused Japan to finally surrender.
Following the end of war, the military move received much criticism due to both moral and political reasoning. Many claim that the true reason behind the bombings were intended to show the military power US had in order to prevent further wars. Supporters suggest that if it wasn't for the nuclear attack, the US would have to go in to attack Japan which would extend the war and cause more casualties.
2015071

Pro

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are better choice than invading the whole Japan, which will cause a considerable bigger causalities on both sides. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helps ending the war faster, so future wars and bombings would be prevented, especially from firebombings. You may say 'Well the bombs killed innocent citizens!' But look at what Japan did to Nanjing, and everywhere else in China. Imperial Japanese god f*cked up soldiers raped and slaughtered innocent Chinese! If Japan kills innocents, why can't the US? After all, the Imperial Japan bought this to themselves. Yes its horrible, but this is war.
Debate Round No. 1
sviridovt

Con

Just for future reference, round one is usually used for acceptances as the original entry stated, but either way.

The Japanese bombings were not morally or politically justified because there was not a real reason for them, by August 1945 the war had already been won and Japan had no chance at victory, Germany had already surrendered causing Japan to lose its greatest ally making the bombings unnecessary since they could have waited out the war.
Two days after the first bombing the USSR declared a war on Japan which the US officials knew was going to happen regardless of bombings, causing Japan to be completely surrounded by enemies, Japan did not have the military resources to keep the war going for long. Many claim that the bombing is justified because otherwise the casualties would have been much greater, with this in mind however many military experts have said that the casualty estimates were unfounded and with Russia fighting the Japanese US casualties would likely be less than 100,000 proving the casualties to be fewer than were killed in the bombings.
The bombings were most likely caused in order to intimidate the world and most importantly the Soviets, of whom the US government was growing suspicious of. The second bomb was dropped only 3 days after the first one, which was not enough time for the act of war to be completely comprehended by the Japanese government in order to take action. The brief time between the bombings was likely due to the United States trying to show the power and ability of the US military to utterly destroy a city.
Furthermore, the many scientists behind the Manhattan project had concerns over the safety of atomic weaponry, suggesting that deploying the bomb could potentially (albeit a very small chance) set the atmosphere on fire which would do massive damage potentially destroying life on earth. In addition, the spread of radiation has not been researched to an extent necessary to be confident that radiation would not spread beyond the bomb radius and potentially beyond Japan.
With all of these points in mind, can we really say that the bombings were justified? What war is worth the risks associated with the bombings? The bombings of Japan were motivated by nothing but the need for US to demonstrate their military power, using Japan as an excuse for showing off the most deadly weapon ever invented.
2015071

Pro

Sorry for not following the rules, I'm new to here... but em, never mind.

1. The Imperial Japan did not surrender like a samurai. Therefore, the war isn't finish. Yes, Japan has no doubt, will lose this war, but they didn't surrender. So, therefore, the US bombed Japan, and end the war. Just like every war in the history book, you end it with brutal force (and it's the law).
2. Yes, US army planned an invasion against Japan. But, an invasion is just too costly, both for Japan, and US. Look at Normandy, many US and other countries soldiers were killed because of some 20,000 Nazis sitting on top of the beach. Many were dead from this mission. If the US carried an invasion onto Japan, it will be not deadly like the Normandy, but it would still kill 100,000 possibly.
3. It is kind of a power show off, but that's war. When you have a fight with someone, you punch very hard. Why? because to show you're better than that piece of sh*t, and scares him off and get the victory. Same as war. Gain victory? Bomb the f*ck out. Yes, it's terrible, but it's war! Every countries fought in WW2 use different weapons to show who's better and therefore win the war. It's just happens the US use nuclear bombs.
4. The Manhattan project happened before Hiroshima. They did test the weapon before Hiroshima and records radiation. They found out the atmosphere is still intact and didn't burn. If the US didn't test the weapon, how would they know if it's working? And will it effect the world including US? They sure knows it will have radiation and will affect people (some people who carried the test got temporary blind from the blast). The US knows it kills, but how it kills was to an extend.

Overall, it is a terrible blast, but it is war, what do you expect? Adolf Hitler holding hands with Winston Churchill and watch My Little Pony? No way. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are all simple act of war. Morals, f*ck me (Nanjing, Holocaust...).
Debate Round No. 2
sviridovt

Con

sviridovt forfeited this round.
2015071

Pro

2015071 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
sviridovt

Con

sviridovt forfeited this round.
2015071

Pro

2015071 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
derplington
Well actually, many more millions of Japanese people and American soldiers would have died if not for the bombings. The Japanese people were instructed to give up their lives for the sake of the country especially if it meant killing enemy soldiers. I know it sounds horrible, but those bombs were saved more people than it killed, on both sides.
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
derplington
I would have voted yes if I did not had to add a phone number to vote.
Posted by Kaneo 3 years ago
Kaneo
Regardless of what you think about pearl harbor, it's killing millions of innocent people who were not involved. That's like killing a class full of children because you were mad at the teacher in charge.
Posted by revic 3 years ago
revic
I'm glad some people are con on this one. Be aware though, many Americans would quote unreliable and incomplete research. It's easy to find pro-american articles to quote!
No votes have been placed for this debate.