The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Were the Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki needed and/or justified?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 865 times Debate No: 66506
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




1) The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not justified. The Russians declared war on Japan after the fall of the Third Reich and had already advanced into Manchuria. The air raids an the bombings on Tokyo had reduced the Japanese military to almost nothing, surrender would have been further away but only by 1-3 months. The Japanese knew after the fall of Germany that they could not win, it was only a matter of time before the empire collapsed.

2)It was State Terrorism. The main casualties were Civilians. Over 100,000 innocent people died, Children and Elders, Babies. It was a way to quickly scare the Japanese into surrender.


After the fall of the Third Reich there was many calls for Japan to surrender. Even with Russia joining in the fight they was many indications that Japan was in for the war until the last man. My opponent brings but that the Japanese military was no longer able to fight a long war. It was not only the military that would have to be fought. Japan made every every indication that it would be against every single Japanese citizen.

“Prime Minister Hideki Tojo had called for "100 million gyokusai (we call them IEDs today),” and that the entire Japanese population be prepared to die.” (1)

During this time there was a rise in kamikaze style attacks. (1)

The was no indication that the war was only a few months away from being won. There was every indication this would be a long war with heavy losses on both sides. (1)

In addition the Japaneses people were warned about the bombs ahead of time.

In the Potsdam Declaration a ultimatum was induced that stated: "We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces…the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Before the first bomb leaflets were dropped that stated:

Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately” (2)

Before the second bomb leaflets were dropped that stated:

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.”

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.”

A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.”

Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.”

because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.”



(3 full text in proper order can be view at this source.)

Not all of the Japanese people are against the dropping of the bombs:

In 1983, at the annual observance of Hiroshima's destruction, an aging Japanese professor recalled that at war’s end, due to the extreme food rationing, he had weighed less than 90 pounds and could scarcely climb a flight of stairs. "I couldn't have survived another month," he said. "If the military had its way, we would have fought until all 80 million Japanese were dead. Only the atomic bomb saved me. Not me alone, but many Japanese, ironically speaking, were saved by the atomic bomb."(1)




Debate Round No. 1


Masterire forfeited this round.


While the dropping of the atomic bombs may not have be moral I have meet my BoP that they were needed and justified.

Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
Psssh no vote? lol I tried to show both, but I think the instigator would have been better with saying it was immoral. It is way harder to argue it was the morally right thing to do. In general there is many things in war that are needed and justified that are not the morally right thing. Also what is justified or needed is very subjective.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
The instigator should have just specified "justified" or "needed" instead of giving Pro a choice between the two.
Posted by Jackninja5 2 years ago
Of course it isn't justified or needed! Only a complete bastard would think that!
Posted by thebniemz 2 years ago
japan bombed us first. We were just doing what we had to do and defending the american people. Hey when you mess with the best you lose like the rest.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Combat war is no picnic. You got to kill the woman, "children and elders, babies," even their pets, etc. That is how you win wars.

In fact, WWII was the last combat war we won. All those political combat wars after WWII we lost or in a stalemate like the current Korea War.

The political combat war we are in today, our opponents have no problem killing the woman, "children and elders, babies," etc. And in saying that, one could predict who is going to win the war we are in today, if we don't change our tactics.

By the way, our opponents have more experience of war compared to the US, for their ideology is one of conquest:
Posted by smlburridge 2 years ago
Too bad I don't meet the criteria, guess I'll have to make my own debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture