The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
G33M0
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

the atomic bombings of japan were 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...
G33M0
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 56062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

some say we should have just dropped a bomb or two 'close' to japan, or somewhere much less populated, to prove our capacity. however, we only had two bombs ready to be used, and that might not have been sufficient. in fact, when we did drop the first bomb, they still weren't ready to surrender. so that shows dropping them elsewhere would have been a waste of time. they were talking about surrendering with conditions, but weren't willing to do it, even after the first drop. so, the second drop was necessary.
even then, when they did surrender, the leader said they wouldnt ever surrender if their social and political systems weren't respected. this shows they were willing to go all the way, which is what was necessary, that we do likewise, if they kept killing our people.
we had to do it fiercely to stop them from killing our people. that we gave them a grace period shows that we were humane about it to the most extent we could.

the following shows the things i said.

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

it's not like we weren't unaware of the gravity of the situation.

"I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb ... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us ... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes."
"President Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945
G33M0

Con

The atomic bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not and never will be morally justifiable.

The bomb dropping was overkill as Japan was already on the verge of losing.

We had already defeated all of Japan's allies. The Soviet Union joined the Allies, Italy was captured and Germany surrendered. There was no other alternative than to surrender. The Allied forces had already destroyed all of Japans military ships and aircraft. The war was lost. Japan had already lost many resources from fighting in other wars such as WWI and invading other Asian nations. Japan would eventually surrender even if we just waited it out.

The US broke numerous international laws.

Due to the targeting of innocent Japanese civilians among other things, the United States had broken many international laws involving war.

The broken laws include:

1. The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal.

2. Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives.


3. Any attack […] must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations […] are not bombed through negligence.

4. Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.


However, the areas targeted at the Los Alamos Target Committee were:

Kyoto; urban industrial area; intellectual center for Japan; people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of weapon

Hiroshima; army depot & port of embarkation in middle of urban industrial area; large part of the city could be extensively damaged; adjacent hills likely to considerably increase blast damage

Yokohama; urban industrial area; untouched

Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial dispersion. It has oil refineries and storage.

None of these areas were military bases.

Source- http://www.dannen.com...;

The bombing was a waste of time, resources and lives.

The Pro side said, quote on quote “we had to do it fiercely to stop them from killing our people. that we gave them a grace period shows that we were humane about it to the most extent we could."
However, they were the ones dying. We had already won the war, and we chose to makes more civilian casualties by dropping a bomb onto a civilian city. All the US did from that was show their strength in an unnecessary show of power which only made their loss in Vietnam worse. And why is the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians "humane"? The civilians themselves did nothing to us, yet we still bombed them. In fact, we targeted that area knowing that there was no military equipment in that area of Japan. How is that justified?

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

we could have just waited it out, probably, sure. but at what cost? they weren't surrendering any time soon. and as said, even after the first one, they still weren't ready to surrender. how many americans are you willing to let die while we wait it out? that isn't so much rhetorical. i might value one american lost to 500 to a thousand japanese. it's hard to put limits on an american life. but i can say, the battle of okinawa alone caused over 75000 american soldier deaths. tht's one battle alone. that is close to one of the atomic bombs. that's pretty proportional.
but really we dont need to look into historical numbers of deaths etc. i agree we have a duty to try to keep things proportional, but if they aren't surrendering, we have not to no choice but to keep going fiercely until they do.

violating war agreements doesn't mean much. there's a saying, that all is fair in love and war. if it's a war, almost by definition you aren't going to follow the rules. perhaps we should try to keep things 'in bounds', to some extent, but when that many americans are dying, you have to take more desperate measures. it's the right thing to do, cause if we don't, we suffer the casualties.
G33M0

Con

First, I would like to refute my opponents points, and then I will extend my own.

According to the pro, American lives are worth more than all other lives. This is not true as all lives should be considered equal. The pro said, quote on quote, " I might value one American lost to 500 to a thousand Japanese. " How are those values proportional?
Again, the Japanese civilians did nothing to us, yet we still killed hundreds of thousands of them. This is not "revenge". This is murder. We are not avenging anyone one's death. We are instead, taking it out on the innocent. This is not in the slightest bit"morally justifiable". The murder of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is not and never will be "morally justifiable". How are we better than them if we kill thousands of their people?
Even though the battle of Okinawa cause around 75,000 American casualties, the combined casualties of both atomic bomb droppings were 225,000. That is 1/3 of the casualties. Even then, more Japanese soldiers died in the battle of Okinawa(around 110,000). Therefore, Japanese losses heavily outnumbered American losses.
Now that I have refuted my opponents points, I will extend my own.
The bomb dropping was overkill as Japan was already on the verge of losing.
The US broke numerous international laws.
The bombing was a waste of time, resources and lives.

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con acts as if we can't value an american life over a japanese. but how can we not if we are engaging in war to win? following con's thoughts... it's not about winning or losing, it's about minimizing the number of deaths. if our enemy wasn't going to kill everyone, it may have been better to just surrender to him as then we have fewer lives lost.
and it defies basic intution and logic. if a couple robbers break into your house and threaten to kill your mom, it's well within your rights and proportional to kill them both if you can. they were out of line and were going to do wrong. we don't just tally the total deaths and do what's least.
his points here are actually pretty ridiculous.

con says the japanese did nothing to us, but it's well established that they bombed us at pearl harbor. con might have specualtion that says otherwise, but that's all it is, well documented evidence v speculation.
again this is pretty far fetched and pretty ridiculous. we'd have to get into conspiratcy theries to consider otherwise.

con asks how are one american lost to500 proportional. what value does he give? are we to rest on the ridculous stuff about not about what's right or what hapepns but what outcome results in teh fewest lives lost? i cant see that being so and question if con really believes it, so how much?
and really that 500 point is beside the point. i showed that in okinawa we lost over 70000 lives. one atomic bomb cased abotu the same death. so that's proportional. that we had to do another one only shows that they wouldn't surrender. how is it better to do another okinawa when we could use a bomb, hwne it's their lives proportioally lost instead of ours?

also,if you take con's logic, the bombs could have reduced the overall deaths. con says over 100k japs died in okinawa. well, if we kept doing battles like that, the numbers could have gone well beyond what happened with the bombs. if both side isn't clearly winning or losing, it could lead to that. with a bomb, it shows that there's no way they are going to win.
G33M0

Con

The pro stated quote on quote "con acts as if we can't value an american life over a japanese." The fact is simple-We can't. The fact that the pro would say this, shows that the pro has no regard for anyone other countries lives other than his/her own (American). The complete and utter disregard for human rights shown in this sentence shocks and amazes us as it is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.

The pro also stated "it's not about winning or losing, it's about minimizing the number of deaths. if our enemy wasn't going to kill everyone, it may have been better to just surrender to him as then we have fewer lives lost." We believe we never said anything about winning or losing the war as America had already won the war as the atomic bomb was overkill. We were just looking for another way to win that involves less death and destruction. The way that the pro interpreted this sentence shows that they do not care about the death toll in the war. For the Japanese situation, it would be better to survive and surrender than fight without chance such as use of ships and planes(as the Allied forces had destroyed them all) and get annihilated.

We also found that the similarities between the situation of the use of the Atomic Bomb and the situation the Pro gave us are few. The situation the Pro gave was "if a couple robbers break into your house and threaten to kill your mom, it's well within your rights and proportional to kill them both if you can. they were out of line and were going to do wrong." Other than the fact that robbers would not logically break into a house and finding people inside, capture and threaten to kill them, this situation is highly impractical and unnecessary as there is a very small connection between these 2 events. War is nothing like this situation as war is more chaotic than someone threataning to kill someone else. To make this situation more like the situation, it would go more like this-Some muggers(Japanese solders/government) hurt your friend(Pearl Harbor). As retaliation, you(American government/solders) decide to take the muggers to court (the war) but after a good amount of time, to end the case, you attack the mugger's friend(Japanese civilians) and hurt them with a gun(atomic bomb). To stop the assault on their friend, the muggers surrender and let you win. That is more like what happened as the Japanese government attacked Pearl Harbor and instead of striking them, the United States attack the citizens. If the pro says that our points are "ridiculous", we believe that the pro should read these points yet again as the first 2 points (1-The bomb dropping was overkill as Japan was already on the verge of losing. 2-The US broke numerous international laws.) are known facts and the 3rd one (The bombing was a waste of time, resources and lives.) is a common belief and a legitimate opinion.

The pro states "con says the japanese did nothing to us, but it's well established that they bombed us at pearl harbor. con might have specualtion that says otherwise, but that's all it is, well documented evidence v speculation." I believe that the pro did not read our points correctly, as we did not say the Japanese did nothing to us, but the Japanese citizens did nothing to us. It was the Japanese government and soldiers that attacked us yet we attacked the citizens. The pro quote on quote says "con asks how are one american lost to500 proportional. what value does he give? are we to rest on the ridculous stuff about not about what's right or what hapepns but what outcome results in teh fewest lives lost? i cant see that being so and question if con really believes it, so how much?" In fact, we did give a proportion and if the pro side actually took the time to read over our statements properly, they would find that we gave them equal values so the proportion we gave them would be 1 to 1. And unless everyone here is the bloodthirsty person the pro is, as they do not want to take the outcome with the least deaths but in fact, consider that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians to be right. The pro side also seems to refuse the fact that there are other people in the world that have different perspectives from them as they say " i cant see that being so and question if con really believes it, so how much?" "i showed that in okinawa we lost over 70000 lives. one atomic bomb cased abotu the same death. so that's proportional. that we had to do another one only shows that they wouldn't surrender. how is it better to do another okinawa when we could use a bomb, hwne it's their lives proportioally lost instead of ours?" Because of how half of 225,000 (112,500) is not close to 70,000 (which is a difference of 42,500) the bomb droppings caused roughly 60% more death than the battle of Okinawa. Due to how the battle of Okinawa was before the atomic bomb droppings, and before we had destroyed all of the Japanese aircraft and ships, the evidence of surrender could not possibly be shown due to the fact of it being too early to show surrender in the first place.

Another quote by the pro side says "also,if you take con's logic, the bombs could have reduced the overall deaths. con says over 100k japs died in okinawa. well, if we kept doing battles like that, the numbers could have gone well beyond what happened with the bombs. if both side isn't clearly winning or losing, it could lead to that. with a bomb, it shows that there's no way they are going to win." Well, because of our position (pushed up to Japan) and the inability of the Japanese to fight back due to their planes and ships being destroyed, there would not be another battle like Okinawa. The way the pro side casually calls the Japanese the term "japs" (which is a racial slur) shows they do not care in the slightest for the well-being of other civilians if they are not American. "if both side isn't clearly winning or losing, it could lead to that. with a bomb, it shows that there's no way they are going to win." However, the thing is, that the Americans were winning. We had destroyed all their military equipment and were pushed up to the island of Japan. They had no way of receiving help as there was no one to receive help from. The bomb was overkill as at this point in the war, the Americans had already won due to the Japanese being unable to fight back. Therefore, due to the pro being unable to respond to our three arguments as well as being unable to hold their own arguments, vote for the con side.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
Pro endorses the view to the extent of saying "we" ..... .
Posted by Charliemouse 2 years ago
Charliemouse
It has not ben proven that Japan dropped that bomb on Pearl harbor, which is supposedly what started the whole conflict. however usa is notorious for starting crap with other countries for hidden reasons and creates all sorts of fairy tales so the people don't become disturbed by the truth. so the whole war really shouldn't have happened. Japan had no reason to surrender, they were the ones being attacked. thing is that when a country is attacked it immediately prioritizes defense, then withdrawal of the enemy and then takes over whatever else it can get while pushing the enemy back. japan supposedly attacked from a distance in a stupid, pointless location, then withdrew to their own country and were counter attacked, then tried to counter the counter attack. sorry but that's just not how it works, it isn't logical
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
A war of carnage is no picnic, to win, you got to kill the seed as well as the war machine to beat the enemy into submission or extinction.

Surrender from submission is only part of the battle. The next phase, is cultural change of the enemy, in time, to become friends. If that phase is not successful, war will be on the horizon.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by revic 2 years ago
revic
dairygirl4u2cG33M0Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is really pro-american, but does not have the historical evidence to prove that her country did the right thing.