Were the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justifiable?
I'm going to make this shorter than most of my arguments, as it seems Pro's already contradicted himself.
"i believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justifiable as we may not be living as North Americans today if those bombings were prevented."
If anything, that justifies the bombings, as it means there's a gain in that it saved lives.
Thank you for clearing up what side you're on.
So, my opponent believes that the bombings "...should have happened..." for the reason that if it had not, we would be governed by the "Japanese and German[s]...right now."
For the initial part of this round, my argument will derive much from a rebuttal of my opponent, Pro, before I make my own argument.
"These bombings should have happened as we may be living under Japanese and German rule right now."
Now, ignoring the Hypothesis Contrary to Fact fallacy, I'm rather inclined to make a subsequent argument that living under "Japanese and German rule" would not be as terrible as my opponent believes (to the point where it justifies an intentional death toll of 246,000+ innocent civilians).
Alternate Government Versus Intentional Genocide
Now, I'm assuming that Pro is implying, though he may very well not be, that the German and Japanese governing of our nation would be bad because of something such as the Holocaust. In chronology, it's worthy to note that Germany had already surrendered by the time we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. However, even if they had not (furthering the hypothesis), the Holocaust would not continue up until this day.
We, as a nation, have had many terrible events in the past. Remember when you learned that thing that involved the Black Americans? You know, how we enslaved 15,000,000 people deemed to be lesser than those that seemed White? They taught that kind of stuff in History, but whatever. Oh, we also happened to kill a bunch of them. We also attempted a genocide of the Native Americans, as in the ones that were living here already, and successfully wiped out entire tribes. Do we still do that today? I highly doubt the Holocaust would have stayed in style that much longer after Hitler committed suicide. Without an authoritative support to his views, it probably would have collapsed as many would rebel, just as the United States did. Some of those that rebelled, known formally as the abolitionists, even became national leaders. Two that you probably have heard of are Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams. We also incarcerated 110,000 Japanese Americans. Oh, and remember that time we killed 246,000+ innocent civilians?
It wouldn't have taken much to end the Holocaust and, effectively, the Fascist/Nazist movement altogether. The Japanese also had a very hierarchic, authoritative government. However, it'd be foolish to say that ours isn't. We're clearly not in an Libertarian or Anarchist state. However, it can be argued that the government they had was much more authoritative and would not have been as much to our liking.
However, it's worthy to note that the Japanese had Consent of the Governed. In fact, a rebellion did not occur from the Appetitive until the Kyujo Incident when Japan was considering surrender in World War II. Had we not liked the Japanese government, it would have been reformed, assuming we didn't all commit Seppukku before it happened. Very probable. Overthrowing a leader for a government reform isn't something new. Not in Japan. Not in the United States.
It appears then, that in going with my opponent's hypothesis, that being under the ruling of the "Japanese and German[s]" would not be an issue. The issue would be, of course, getting Japan to surrender in the first place.
Potential Japanese Surrender
"The Germans have surrendered. The Manhattan Project is still underway. If we don't drop atomic bombs on these innocent civilians, how can we get the Japanese to surrender? Is there any way to get them to? Our perfect, patriotic Americans are dying, dammit!"
"Sir, I have 5 alternatives to the atomic bombing of Japan. I'd like to note however, sir, that I would prefer we pick the most humane of them, for both sides."
"Very well, Muffin. Can I just say that you have a very peculiar name? I also haven't noticed you on my Cabinet before now, and thus you haven't affected History in any other way but this! How odd. It's almost as if this situation is only occurring for hypothetical means!"
"Thank you, Mister President."
"Please, call me Frank."
"I admire your cape."
Alright, we've set the scene. So. What. Are. The.
"Well, sir, I believe most of these were already brought up before, but here they are. I believe six strong alternatives are:
Those are all the alternatives to the bombing I think we should strongly consider."
"Well, elaborate on how each one would be better. Consider."
"An immediate invasion, at this point, would most likely, according to our projections, cause over 2,000,000 deaths. We're unsure how many an atomic bomb would kill, sir, as we've never dropped such a device before, but we're certain that 2,000,000 would be more than how many the bomb would kill. Also, the projections only account for the sides sans Japanese. We believe the Japanese casualties would affect this strongly."
"Ah, so we can't do that."
"Yes, Mister President. A solo invasion of paratroopers in crucial spots may not succeed either, as the Japanese have demonstrated will to fight even without their leader."
"So, what does that leave us, Muffin? What's your first name?"
"TheDark, sir. Anyways, I-"
"Hold on, what?"
"With all due respect, sir, you're de-railing my argument for each one. As I was saying, that leaves blockage, conventional bombing, and waiting it out. I believe that conventional bombing would have the same issue as the solo invasion. So that leaves two options."
"Why would waiting it out help?"
"The Japanese have already been considering ceasing war upon us. In fact, I have it on good source that it is no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
"You said ''."
"Oh, I...I did? I did. I felt I had to for some reason."
"This feels like a dream...Muffin, when were you born?"
"1996. I mean-sir, this is irrelevant. Currently, I believe our greatest option is to wait it out. If they do not surrender, we will cause a blockage, which will stop them from receiving the necessary oil to create their war machinery. Then they will be forced to surrender. If they continue to fight, despite this, those that attempt to make it through the blockage through force will be eliminated."
"Very well. I guess the atomic bombs are not a necessity, then. Wait a minute. I know why I don't know you! I-"
It was very unnecessary. We could have prevented all those civilian casualties with ease. Also, Frank is very charming.
bigdanny27 forfeited this round.
My opponent hasn't really made any substantial arguments, so I urge the audience to vote Con.