Yes because of the rich Japanese culture that also dictated that defeat was not an option in WWII ,without the atomic bombings a conventional invasion of the Japanese homeland would have occurred. If Japanese citizens in the Pacific campaign committed mass suicide when their territory was occupied by US troops than a conventional invasion of they're homeland would have been even worse. This is not counting all the military causalities that would occur as a result of this win or die culture, not only on the US side, but on the Japanese side as well.
The nuclear weapon was first and only used during the pacific battles in WW2. Many officials were skeptical of a weapon of mass destruction, so it was demonstrated in a nuclear testing facility. The results, a bomb with a little over 10 times more power than the surface of the sun. During this time, the United States had just won the war in Europe, and could now focus their attention on Japan. Which brings me to the resolution: Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
The ends of the nuclear weapons are not justified, simply for the outcomes or consequences they brought. Over 200,000 Japanese civilians were killed, to " save the lives of millions." Though it may have ended the war and the outcome was justified for our country, doesn't mean that the outcome was justified for all countries. Because this resolution doesn't specify whether it justified a single or particular groups, we MUST suggest that the ends must justify for all. And because the Japanese were not in an healthy state of mind after these actions, this end cannot be justified. In order for my opponent to win, he/she must prove that all ends were justified. They must simply follow the resolution.
The means were justified for all because the entire and only reason the US command dropped these bombs was to keep the war from being prolonged. In your argument about the resolution you stated that the means weren't justified for the Japanese, while failing to even mention the consequences of a conventional invasion for the USA in terms of troops and cost. Yes many died at the sites of these attacks but many more would have died otherwise. As I mentioned in my earlier argument it would not only hurt the US but Japan as well. In this case the means were justified because of the lives it saved on both sides. Either way Japan would be occupied eventually by the US with or without the bombs but with the bombs it took less time, as well as lives.
The Japanese as you said would not give up because of their cultural beliefs. Many Japanese soldiers such as the fighter pilots committed suicide just for their country to win. Even innocent civilians felt that their homes were being invaded and the next nuclear target would be their small village. To escape the terror, they committed suicide as well and created even more fear. With fear over Japan, many died to escape the soon coming Americans coming to invade their homeland. The Japanese may have stopped the number of soldier casualties from surrendering, but it did not stop their people from living in fear. Until this generation would pass, Japan would live destroyed and radiated for decades.
How could you possibly believe the ends were justified for the Japanese culture? Americans were forced to occupy Japan for over 10 years to insure that thing would return to their normal state. Even now, we have islands off the shire of Japan to patrol the pacific because we still cannot trust are once enemies. They lost their purpose to fight in the the war, and ended their life because of the feeling of failure. I am certain that fear,increasing casualties, and hostile occupations are not justified outcomes from dropping the nuclear weapon.
First of all, the things like mass suicides occurred during the Pacific campaign where atomic weapons were not used. These new weapons were used on the Japanese homeland. The only reason the US and Japan were even in a war was because of a sneak attack on US territory. In war it is sad but true people die. The bombings were justified because if in your opinion the Pacific island hopping campaign was a hard win try to perform an occupation in a enemy country that has not yet surrendered and still has enough troops to mount an effective defense against any landing made on their islands shores. Not only would this cause many more deaths for every bloody step of ground taken from this determined and possibly suicidal enemy. The bombings were justified, not because of the lives they took but the lives they prevented from being taken.
First I would like to state that my opponent agreed that the act wasn't justified for the ones that died, and was for the ones that were supposively "saved." Another point is that there were massive suicides after the surrender of Japan. After the surrender, the emperor, Hirohito, ordered all Japanese civilians to commit suicide. Though this order wasn't followed through the who country, it was followed in many cities and villages. Our actions of dropping the nuclear weapons simply did not justify for ALL. Believing that it did is a false analogy.
It was justified for all because it prevented a war founded in greed and showered with death from continuing. In my case I did say death was unfortunate but an unavoidable side effect of war. Especially one fought against opponents as determined as the Japanese. The Japanese could not be invaded through the beaches because it would kill so many more than necessary in order for the occupation to take place. The Allies could not just simply leave the Axis country alone without endangering themselves more than necessary. The Japanese planned for a bloody and horrid invasion of their homeland ,but they got two atomic bombs to prevent exactly that. Those that committed suicide were die hard Japanese that believed in an emperor that got them in a war that they couldn't win.