The Instigator
Dr.Deeee
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnSmith1
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justifiable?

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...
JohnSmith1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 34231
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Dr.Deeee

Con

I believe the bombings should have been prevented as many brothers, sitters, and friends perished as the americans wanted to finish something quickly.
JohnSmith1

Pro

I accept. First off in a war morally justifiable is not usually brought up. On with the debate. Americans fully warned many japan cities beforehand of the dropping of the bombs. We showered cities like hiroshima and nagasaki with warning to leave immediately. If they chose to stay that is their own fault. That may sound cold but they had the choice to get out and they chose not to. http://www.damninteresting.com... Also before you bring up the ammount of deaths in the atomic bombs, more japanese people were actually killed in the firebombings of Tokyo. A quick google search should show that is true. It is difficult to argue that any act of war is morally justifiable. However it is estimated had we invaded Japan there would have been 500,000- 1 million lives lost for u.s and 4-5 million Japan casualties. Some estimates believe higher. Therefore the atomic bombs actually saved millions of lives. Don't dismiss these numbers. It is a fact more lives would have been lost if the U.S had been forced to invade. Also these cities would have been firebombed anyway. By using the bomb immediately we have prevented any nuclear bomb being used for 70 years. Even Japan's defense minister said, "The use of the bomb was inevitable to end the war." I have a direct question for you as two of my grandparents were navy men in the Pacific, would you have killed them by refusing to end the war? Even after both bombs were dropped the Japan war council remained tied on the topic of surrender. Without the Atomic bombs it is likely that they would have fought on to punish the allies for their victory. There was even a coup after the bombs were dropped to seize the recording of the surrender so that Japan would fight on. These people could not be reasoned with. They had been brainwashed into fighting on despite the odds. Tragically revisionist have tried to say that we should have invaded Japan. They ignore factual estimates of the casualties counted. Another point if Truman had not dropped the bombs and we invaded Japan, and later it was discovered we could have ended the war it is likely he would have been impeached. I am not condoning an act of war. I am condoning saving tens of millions of japanese and american lives. Thank you for an interesting and controversial debate topic and I wish you the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Dr.Deeee

Con

Dr.Deeee forfeited this round.
JohnSmith1

Pro

I think I have made my point and my opponent realizes he is wrong on this. God bless America.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr.Deeee

Con

Dr.Deeee forfeited this round.
JohnSmith1

Pro

God bless all the soldiers that have fought in every war for freedom and liberty. Thanks for all those who have kept us safe.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Magicr 3 years ago
Magicr
Dr.DeeeeJohnSmith1Tied
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: FFs