The Instigator
Jake996897
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Was the nuclear and platonium bombing on japan nessesary

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 688 times Debate No: 45636
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Jake996897

Pro

Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

1: round skip

2: construction

3: rebudle

4: final statments
Jifpop09

Con

I accept and affirm that the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings were not 100% justifiable.
Debate Round No. 1
Jake996897

Pro

The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were totaly necessary. Near the end of world war 2, the U.S pacific fleet began the invasion of japan. But there was A problem. There were tons of island shielding Japan's mainland borders. This made the U.S invade every single island before they could move in and invade japan. The problem with this is that the Japanese army wasn't just fighting back , the civilians were fighting back with them.

During an invasion it was reported that U.S solders with a escort of tanks were charged with hundreds of thousands of civilians armed with only bamboo spears and knifes. Tis would obviously be a slaughter for the Japanese but they didn't gun down all of the. Some of them had satchel explosives that they would use for exploding tanks or hurting nearby infantry. The us suffered over 30,00 casualties. But japan suffered hundreds of thousands, including the civilians who jumped to their death rather than surrender to the enemy.

This was only 1 island they had plenty more to go. But even if they did get to japan they ran a simulation that predicted it would result in over half a million U.S casualties along with over a million Japanese, mostly civilians. Rather than take out a huge chunk of the Japanese workforce, not to mention a large number of our military personel. We decided to do japan a favor and take out under 100,000 Japanese.

If you think about it even if we tried to invade Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They probobly would have attacked us like the rest of the Japanese populace. So we were just taking out potential threats. If we wanted to hurt japan in a serious way we would have bombed the major city's such as Tokyo. We were just ending a war they unprovokly started. Our attacked was 100% justified. We were simple returning the favor for there barbaric and savage bombing of innocent us soldiers.
Jifpop09

Con

Jifpop09 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jake996897

Pro

That's a shame I was looking forward to this debate
Jifpop09

Con

Alright. I will be debating this on strategic and moral grounds.

Pro
The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were totaly necessary. Near the end of world war 2, the U.S pacific fleet began the invasion of japan. But there was A problem. There were tons of island shielding Japan's mainland borders. This made the U.S invade every single island before they could move in and invade japan. The problem with this is that the Japanese army wasn't just fighting back , the civilians were fighting back with them.


By the time the atomic bombs were deployed, the leapfrogging campaign was about over. The Imperial navy was utterly destroyed, and the emperor resorted to a desperate attempt of using kamikazes to destroy our fleets. This failed of course, as they were ineffective against steel, and costed the emperor a massive amount of money. In actuality, we never had to invade Japan. We were already conducting a massive bombardment campaign against major Japanese facilities. Japans imperial air force was broken and defenseless against ally bombing runs. Most citizens started to openly oppose the war and fought viciously to have the emperor surrender. As the whole population was in starvation due to Americas "operation starvation".

http://en.wikipedia.org...


During an invasion it was reported that U.S solders with a escort of tanks were charged with hundreds of thousands of civilians armed with only bamboo spears and knifes. Tis would obviously be a slaughter for the Japanese but they didn't gun down all of the. Some of them had satchel explosives that they would use for exploding tanks or hurting nearby infantry. The us suffered over 30,00 casualties. But japan suffered hundreds of thousands, including the civilians who jumped to their death rather than surrender to the enemy.

Are you referring to Okinawa? Okinawa was particular in the fact it was controlled highly by the kempeitai and propaganda. It matters little though, as by the time of the nuclear bombings, the island hopping campaign was over. Plus, we lost a lot less then 30,000 allies and they were not all US. They were British and Canadian also.


But even if they did get to japan they ran a simulation that predicted it would result in over half a million U.S casualties along with over a million Japanese, mostly civilians.

Yes, but Japan also ran simulations that predicted that they had no chance of winning. It was believed that the emperor was already going to surrender before the bombings. The Soviet Union and other allies also joined the war, ending any slightest chance for a Japanese victory. Uprisings had occurred within the country, and Japan could not afford any more war. There was little reason to invade in the first place.

We decided to do japan a favor and take out under 100,000 Japanese

Your kidding right. "Taking out" over 200,000 civilians is not doing anyone a favor. Yes, it was a lot more then 100,000. Not only was it under the guidelines for a war crime, but most of the people killed were innocent. There are a lot of sad stories out there if you look for them. If we wanted to display a test of strength, then we should of bombed a field or military base. Not two major urban centers.

So we were just taking out potential threats. If we wanted to hurt japan in a serious way we would have bombed the major city's such as Tokyo.

You are calculating this like a statician. You are not taking in the "humanity" perspective. Civilians should be kept out of war. We should not bomb civilians under the guise that they would attack us. The moment a civilian joins the fray, they are no longer a innocent bystander.

In short, this falls under the classification of a war crime and should be treated as such. Thanks for the debate.

http://www.globalpolitician.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Jake996897

Pro

Jake996897 forfeited this round.
Jifpop09

Con

That's a shame. I was looking forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Alright, this forfeit was not on purpose. My computer said I had more time. I check how much time I have on debates, as the first thing when I come on the website. I guess I will just have to make stronger arguments to recover from losing a round.
Posted by AdamKG 3 years ago
AdamKG
The nuclear bombing of Japan was not necessary. Attacking civilian targets during a military campaign is not tolerable. It is outright murder killing noncombatants.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rakovsky 3 years ago
rakovsky
Jake996897Jifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Jif cited two sources, while Jake did not. Jake made a good point about Okinawa, but Jif mentioned that the Japanese also did a simulation showing they would lose and that it was believed the emperor would surrender. Why not do a test someplace with less casualties to show the bomb's power? Maybe the emperor was too tough and not going to surrender, and the field test would not have worked? Unfortunately Jif as unrebutted due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Jake996897Jifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff, but came back in the end and showed statistics. Pro didn't.