The Instigator
Auroborus
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Bombing Japan was the best way to end WWII

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...
Auroborus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2019 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,668 times Debate No: 120849
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)

 

Auroborus

Pro

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best way to handle Japan and end WWII.

There was no other way for us to have won the war so quickly without having to bomb Japan. Without bombing them, It would've costed so many more American and Japanese lives, Along with tons of resources.
WrickItRalph

Con

Dropping the nukes was overkill.

Most of the deaths were civilians.

One bomb would have been enough, It can't be the best way if they dropped an extra bomb for no reason.

Targeting areas with dense populations of civilians is a war crime. The best way cannot be one that commits war crimes if there are other reasonable alternatives that weren't war crimes.

Retaliating for Pearl Harbor was also a war crime. In both of the aforementioned cases, I'm defining war crimes by the global standard. This standard applied at the time and now, So it's a reasonable standard to use.

Non nuclear bombs could have prevented just as many losses as a nuke. These types of bombs would have been easier to drop with accuracy and could have saved innumerable Japanese citizens.

I claim that you have not met the burden of proof due to the counterpoints that I mentioned. It's not just good enough to prove that it was a sufficient choice. You have to show it's the best choice out of all possible choices, Including choosing better places to drop the nukes.

Your Floor
Debate Round No. 1
Auroborus

Pro

I'll counter each and every one of your points, And then attack back with my own.

Dropping the nukes weren't overkill considered it was the most necessary action to take in war. You aren't thinking about the enemies feelings but rather how you can win. There were no other viable options (which I'll discuss later).

Most of the deaths were civilians, But we also dropped pamphlets down into Japan, Warning them of our weapons-of-mass-destruction, And how they will be used in military areas, Which both Hiroshima (Military factories and other facilities) and Nagasaki (Military ports and shipbuilding factories) were. Robert Oppenheimer, The guy who made the atomic bomb, Said that he was expecting only a fraction of the civilian deaths that there were, Due to the air raid sirens that would have gone off, Giving the Japanese plenty of time to get to their shelters and survive the blast.

One bomb wouldn't have been enough. The Americans wanted to show Japan it wasn't some "freak of nature" that would only occur once, Combined with the quick one-two effect dropping both bombs on Japan would have, Crippling not only the economy of Japan but also the morale. After all, Even if the government surrendered, If they couldn't show the people why it was better for them to surrender, The people would've overthrown the government, Seized control, And continued the war.

The League of Nations laws is the biggest factor contributing to the "illegal" or in this case "war crime" aspect of dropping the bombs. To that I bring up, Not only was America not in the League of Nations (so the law wouldn't apply to them), They contact Britain, And Britain (who was in the LoN) agreed dropping the bombs was the best course of action.

The only other bombs we had were the B-29s, Which would've cost: more lives (the pilots shot down, Along with more bombing targets), More time (which would've increase casualties and more requests for resources), And more money (one atomic bomb cost 4000 B-29s). The atomic bombs were both dropped with accuracy, As the military chose the best of the best pilots to drop the bombs. Accuracy was not an issue.

My original argument was engineered to be weak, So I could counter your counterpoints. Now, Onto some of my attacking points.

A-Bombs were the way to go, The only viable option.

What about a demonstration? Not only would this have been a waste of the sole purpose of this bomb (destruction), There was also no guarantee it would work, Along with no guarantee that the Japanese would believe it to be real, As nothing like this had ever been seen in public before.

What about a ground invasion? 1. 7 to 4 million American casualties, With an estimated 10 million Japanese casualties. Seems a bit more than just the 175, 000 in both the bombings.

What about waiting for surrender? The government had talked about surrender, But the Japanese people were so devoted to not only their Emperor but also fighting the Americans, They would have continued on fighting us, Whether organized militarily by the government, Or taking into their own hands and fighting guerilla style, Which would've taken around 10 years to get under control.

It's now your floor, But you may not like how I remodeled it for you.
WrickItRalph

Con

So after reading your response, I have a couple problems with your methodology, Then I'll move on to rebutting you critiques.

1) Your overall argument is very apathetic to the civilians killed in these attacks. You prioritize things like testing the bombs and demonstrating our power and our deals with The League of Nations over hundreds of thousands of human lives. I find this troubling.

2) You have asserted that the bombs were the only viable option, But you didn't make counterpoints to rule out ALL of the other options and you didn't make counterpoints to justify that it was necessary to drop them in the way they did. Since you have not done this, Your argument is still only speculation at best.

You said:
"You aren't thinking about the enemies feelings but rather how you can win. "

This is a red herring. My argument is concerning the civilians that were killed. You're trying to distract from that by saying that me wanting civilians to live is "thinking about the enemies' feelings". Furthermore, I'm not even sure this phrase is even true in all situations.

You said:
"we also dropped pamphlets down into Japan"

First problem here is that you're talking about warning people about a weapon that had never been seen in history. Citizens who received these pamphlets would have assumed that these bombs would just be comparable to things they've seen before. The bombs that citizens normally dealt with would have been ones that could be evaded by simply going in normal bunkers and the blast radius would have been expected to be smaller. There is no way that you can justify saying that the citizens could know what was coming their way.

You said:
"One bomb wouldn't have been enough. The Americans wanted to show Japan it wasn't some "freak of nature" that would only occur once"

This is just your opinion. This does not demonstrate any moral or even tactical reason why the second bomb was necessary. This is especially so since that bomb missed it's mark, Which means those people didn't get the pamphlets you're talking about.

You said:
"Crippling not only the economy of Japan but also the morale"

This is false. Japan had already been crippled before The U. S. Even offered their absolute surrender contingency. Their infrastructure was shot. Their navy was non existent. They were even on the verge of famine. That's why it was overkill.

You said:
"The League of Nations laws is the biggest factor contributing to the "illegal" or in this case "war crime" aspect of dropping the bombs"

True, But that just means that they were accessories in the war crime. I don't care what judgements they made. If you look at the laws of war, They violated the civilians clause and the retaliation clause. A war crime is a war crime even if the arbiters are performing it.

You said:
"The atomic bombs were both dropped with accuracy, "

This is embarrassingly false. It is well known that at least one of the bombs missed horribly.

You said:
"The only other bombs we had were the B-29s, "

The U. S. Casualties from using these bombs would have been scarce at best. This is a far more morally superior alternative as opposed to nuking a bunch of civilians. As for the comment about money. I don't care about money over lives, Especially civilian lives.

You said:
"My original argument was engineered to be weak"

Cool story.

You said:
"What about a demonstration? "

This is a horrible reason to kill a bunch of civilians. War is not about grandstanding.

You said:
"What about a ground invasion? "

This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is no data set that we can point to that can prove this claim. You're just speculating as to how many soldiers would have died in the attack. If people had the technology to properly estimate casualties, Then there would be no point in the war because the losing side would know they're losing and just give up.

You said:
"What about waiting for surrender? "

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes! This is probably what they should have done. That's what civilized people do. Like I said, Japan had basically already collapsed in terms of war power. The only reason they were going on to begin with, Was their pride. I'm going to use Monty Python and The Holy Grail as an example. When the protagonist slices off the arm of the black knight, He ignores the wound and continues to fight. So the hero slices another arm. The knight keeps fighting. So he slices the leg. The knight still refuses to give up. Now at this point. The hero could have chosen to kill the knight, But he realized that this enemy was no longer a threat. Being the rational and moral person that he was, He showed mercy and let the knight go. The reality is that America didn't really have to do much of anything. They could have been conservative in the matter and let their opponent wear themselves out, But instead they decided to bring the hammer down to show how big their dorks were.

At best, All you've shown is that nuking them could have been among the candidate options. This is not sufficient for your claim. You have to show that it was the best option and you've left too many variables untouched to justify it.

Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence.

Your Floor.
Debate Round No. 2
Auroborus

Pro

Speculation, Eh? You want evidence, I'll give you evidence.

1) I talked about how we weren't with the League of Nations, And how it wasn't a demonstration of power. And it was no test of the bombs by dropping them on Japan.

2) Ruling out ALL other options would take years and include government documents I don't have. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best spots to drop them due to two reasons. They had to convince the government to surrender (which wouldn't have been that hard), But you also had to convince the people that they needed to surrender (which would've been much harder without a bomb).

3) I meant the "you" as in Americans, Not you specifically. I should've put 'they', My bad.

4) Two sets of leaflets were dropped in a bunch of military-related Japanese cities, Including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first set told of "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. " (This isn't the full document, Just an important snippet). They were given a warning about the complete destruction of their cities, Not just a round of the usual bombings. Had it just been regular B-29s, We wouldn't have sent out pamphlets. And the second set of pamphlets said, "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. " We gave them a fair warning. This makes it look like the citizens had an idea of what was coming there way. Even if a civilian didn't get it, Had anyone that cared about them (friends, Family, Etc. . . ) received one, They would've been warned about this.

5) Also, This actually wasn't my opinion. It was reasoning that came from Washington, DC (which meant Truman, Too) about why it was beneficial to bomb them twice, Not just once.

The bomb didn't miss its mark either, Hiroshima was dropped on 300 yards from the target point. Nagasaki missed by a little under two miles, But it still did the damage that was meant.

6) I chose my words poorly, As you are correct about the economy being shot at this time. But you didn't address the morale part, Or the part where I talked about the people would've fought on (more on that later).

7) Yes, I agree with you in the fact it was a war crime, There is no evidence to dispute the fact it was. But had we lost the war after dropping the 2 bombs, The people that had anything to do with it would be persecuted as war criminals. Although the most modern war crimes came from the Geneva Convention, Which was in 1949, 4 years after the bombs had been dropped.

8) The first bomb was dropped with extreme accuracy, While the second was less so. Although they were both accurate in the way they both did the destruction they were meant to do.

9) 3015 dead in B-29s over Japan. Had we kept bombing them, That number would've kept going up, Higher and higher, Along with Japanese death count. Civilians would've been nuked. 213, 000 Japanese died in the B29 bombings alone, Civilians and military both.
Also, I made the point about money not saying that money was more important to lives, But rather dropping the bombs (which were already made and ready) would've ended the war sooner (which it did), But also wouldn't have cost as many lives or money. It was more of a secondary positive rather than a primary motive.

10) Indeed, It is the coolest of stories.

11) Demonstration = Blow up the bomb in the ocean or unpopulated land. I was fighting against why a demonstration would not work.

12) Ah yes, No data at all. The Navy Department estimated 1. 7 and 4 million casualties for Americans, And 10 million for Japanese I mean, The Navy Department wouldn't know anything, Right? Staff working for Chester Nimitz calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49, 000 men. MacArthur"s staff concluded that America would suffer 105, 000 casualties after 120 days. Chester Nimitz and MacArthur both were alive at the time of the bombings, So they obviously could've estimated the men it would take up. Maybe a quick google search would do you good before you talk about something you aren't so sure about.

13) You see, The Japanese government may have surrendered, But the Japanese people wouldn't have without a good reason like I said above (but you tiptoed around). It wasn't very known that there was a threat of a revolt against the government, Led by an Army group supported by the peasants, To seize control and continue the war. Also, Had the soldiers still been able to fight and the government had lost control over its people, Then millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, It could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation (Karl T. Compton said so himself, A guy who actually worked on the bomb).

So let's say they would've surrendered, But we just had to wait (which wasn't the case), That not only would've cost more lives, More time, And more money than was needed. The bombs were the best way to save all three of these, And the U. S. At the time had to take the best course of action for the U. S. And the allies, Which Japan wasn't apart of. I mean, It ended the war, Didn't it?

I've covered all the main points that need to be covered to prove it was the best option to bomb them. I provided specific evidence while you have yet to do so, Just generic claims and a Monty example. I recommend you research at least a little bit behind the points you want to counter.

And don't worry, I'll have fun continuing this on in the comments if you still need some convincing.
WrickItRalph

Con

You said: " I talked about how we weren't with the League of Nations, And how it wasn't a demonstration of power. And it was no test of the bombs by dropping them on Japan. "

Now you're just flip flopping. You used the league of nations to wave away war crimes and then try to separate them after I debunked it so you could cleverly shift the blame onto the LON instead of the US. Nice try. You doubled talked and claimed that a demonstration of the bomb wouldn't help, Then you changed your position by saying that we had to "show japan our power to make them surrender" So which is it? You can't say we need to scare them into surrendering and then turn around and say that a demonstration wouldn't help.

You said: "Ruling out ALL other options would take years and include government documents I don't have"

This is a cop out. You're the one who made the positive claim that the bombs were the best way. You can't say that I you don't have the data to rule out the other possibilities. You basically just admitted that you don't have the evidence to support your claim.

You said: "They had to convince the government to surrender"

You mean with a demonstration? Flip flopping again I see. You literally just said that there wasn't a demonstration.

Then you said: "But you also had to convince the people that they needed to surrender"

This is nonsense. If the government surrendered, Japan's people would have surrendered with it. You're just trying to create a slippery slope fallacy.

You said: "Two sets of leaflets were dropped in a bunch of military-related Japanese cities"

I already debunked this. There is no reason to expect that citizens could have predicted the level of destruction. Even by modern day standards, The nuclear attacks are legendary in destruction power. Furthermore, You completely glazed over the point I brought up that one of the bombs were dropped in the wrong city and that city didn't get any pamphlets.

You said: "Also, This actually wasn't my opinion. It was reasoning that came from Washington, DC (which meant Truman, Too) about why it was beneficial to bomb them twice, Not just once. "

Okay, It's still an opinion. You've just traded your opinion for Truman's opinion. Where's the data to back it up? Why would we care about Truman's opinion when he's the one whose decision we're questioning in this very debate?

You said: "The bomb didn't miss its mark either"

This is false. You're trying to deny a fact that is so well known, That even a high school honors student could tell you that you're wrong. There's even an interview on record with the pilot who missed the drop. Just give this point up.

You said: "I chose my words poorly, As you are correct about the economy being shot at this time. But you didn't address the morale part, Or the part where I talked about the people would've fought on (more on that later). "

You can't prove that they would have kept fighting. Furthermore, If that was the case, Then dropping the bombs wouldn't have matter, Because I could just say the same thing as you. See watch "They would have kept on fighting if they dropped the bombs" See why I don't take bold claims as evidence? This is just another slippery slope fallacy.

You said: "Yes, I agree with you in the fact it was a war crime, There is no evidence to dispute the fact it was. But had we lost the war after dropping the 2 bombs, The people that had anything to do with it would be persecuted as war criminals. "

Yeah, That's the problem. The only reason that they got away with it was because they had the global authorities in their pocket. How am I suppose to believe they made the best choice when they committed a war crime and then snaked out of it?

You said: " 3015 dead in B-29s over Japan. Had we kept bombing them, That number would've kept going up, Higher and higher, Along with Japanese death count. Civilians would've been nuked. 213, 000 Japanese died in the B29 bombings alone, Civilians and military both. "

Slippery slope fallacy again. This one is even worse, Because what you're essentially saying is "if we didn't kill a bunch of people, We would have killed a bunch of people" That's vacuous.

You said: "Demonstration = Blow up the bomb in the ocean or unpopulated land. I was fighting against why a demonstration would not work. "

please look up the definition of demonstration. A water test and blowing people up to force them into surrender are both textbook definitions of demonstrations. I never claimed that a water test was a good option, You just claimed it to be a bad option unprovoked. My plan is don't detonate any nukes cause the jap had already lost the war. We didn't do this for tactical reasons. We did it to force a political surrender.

You said: "The Navy Department estimated 1. 7 and 4 million casualties for Americans, And 10 million for Japanese I mean"

That's not hard data. That's just an estimate. There is no way to prove that the estimate is correct. That would be like saying you could guess the number of gumballs in a tall silo without having any data to it's height and width.

You said: "The Navy Department wouldn't know anything, Right"

That's an appeal to authority. Just because they had experience doesn't mean that they can accurately predict casualties in any situation. This may be so or a small attack. But this would have been a big chaotic attack. 100% U. S. Casualties could have been just as likely as 0%.

You said: " The Japanese government may have surrendered, But the Japanese people wouldn't have without a good reason like I said above (but you tiptoed around). It wasn't very known that there was a threat of a revolt against the government"

Okay, So first of all, This is false. The japs worshipped their emperor as a deity and would have listened to him. Furthermore, The revolt wouldn't have happened in this scenario because the government would have went into healing mode and that tends to quell revolts. But let's just pretend that this is true for a second. If the people were going to revolt, Then why wouldn't America just let them rot from the inside out? Isn't that tactically better than risking two pilots? Zero pilots risked is better than two right?

You said: "It ended the war, Didn't it? "

That's not good enough. Please try to remember the topic that you made. You're here to show it was the best option, Not a candidate option. There were many ways to end the war. So you cannot make this appeal.

You said: "And don't worry, I'll have fun continuing this on in the comments if you still need some convincing"

Do what you want, But I don't do that. It ruins the debate by letting you sneak in extra points that you should have brought up in your debate. So basically what you're saying is that you didn't make a good enough case and now you're gonna go spam the comment section so you can get extra words over me. I'm here to improve my debate skills and maybe learn some stuff, So petty point scoring isn't really my interest.

good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@EverlastingMoment.

I get what you're saying. But objectively, At the time, There was a best decision. It is possible for us to place ourselves in that time frame and look at the events. Now it's true that we can't grasp the mind frames of people from that time and it would be fallacious to use our current tangent in history as a comparison, But there was still a strategically and morally correct option. This is where the fallacy kicks in. If someone was to be stuck in this situation in present day and tried to predict the outcome of a particular professed strategy, That strategy would be a slippery slope fallacy if they attempt to justify it unless they can show proof that each subsequent event logically follows. Now if you're just saying that it was the best decision they knew how to make at the time, I'd buy that. But to say it's the best decision objectively is a different story.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
@WrickitRalph Just to add my own opinion on the issue but I do disagree with you on the fallacy part.

There's an inherent difference between making a decision to do something at the time vs making a decision in hindsight of what has happened in the past. It can be argued that it was the 'best decision at the time' and the US did not have the luxury of knowing to the full extent what was going on compared to us debaters looking at the whole issue now.

One can say that at the time that the decision was made to drop the bombs the United States had to have done it at that time itself. The European Theater had already concluded and the allies had already made plans as to how the aftermath was to be handled. It was at this time when the issue of dealing with the USSR was the greatest concern for the Allied Forces since Nazi Germany had already fallen. The Soviet Sphere of Influence was starting to spread and there was already a lot of talk that the greatest battle was still to come against communist tyranny.

That is why in my own opinion the Pacific Theater had to be concluded by the US as fast as possible. The effort was taking too much money, Men and resources away from focusing it against the USSR and the bombs quickly resolved a war that much needed to be concluded at the earliest opportunity.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@HolyAsian. I'm not saying that japan was innocent in all this. But the U. S. A. Committed a war crime. I'm not going to condone a war crime just because our enemies did it too. We're suppose to be better than our enemies.

You completely missed the point of the chess analogy. It's an analogy for not killing civilians. When the chess player is dominating, They don't go around and take all the pieces, They go straight for the king.

See this is the part where you can never prove you case. You can't prove any of those alternatives, It's a slippery slope fallacy. The biggest weakness of this topic is the topic itself. When you say something is "the best" decision, You're adopting an absolutely huge burden of proof. For scale, Proving something is the case 100% of the time is at least twice as hard as proving that it's 99% true. Once you take that extra step into absolutes, You blow your whole case.
Posted by HolyAsian247 3 years ago
HolyAsian247
Ralph, I enjoy your use of analogies but they are not true as you make it out to be.

We can not call Japan a scrappy dog. They committed war crimes on a mass scale. They were able to expand their territory 3x their original size. They had the ferociousness that hasn't been seen in Asia for a long time. They knew the risks when entering the gamble to expand their empire, They took it and continued their ambitions. So overall, They were not a scrappy dog.

You are correct that professional Chess players do resign when they know they lost. So why didn't Japan give up? They had absolutely nothing left, Yet they kept on going. They did not play war as its traditionally played. So they received a penalty not traditionally used. Do you understand what I am saying? We wanted them to surrender just like a regular chess player, But they kept on going. Unlike them, America valued their pawns and would not waste any more when the enemy had clearly lost.

You are also right that I had been off topic. I should talk about the other options and why they weren't the best way to end WW2.

Bombing - By bombing, I mean just bombarding them and dropping on them like crazy. We would lose some pilots but no major casualties. However, In the end, The effect would be the same. Mass-destruction with severe civilian casualties. Bombing is basically the outcome of the nukes but would take longer, More resources, And at least no radiation.

Blockading - We can use the vast amount of warships to block anything to Japan. This would be a very long solution, However, It could succeed. But what would be the cost to Japan? Millions would be starving and thousands or more will die. This can be viewed as immoral as well.

Full Assault - Obviously not going to work and is one of the worst ways to end the war. We can all agree that this is not the solution we want.

Nuke Aim - How about dropping nukes elsewhere? This is debatable. I'm not sure what other targets would've been suitable.
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
Japan, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Etc.

Yep, They got their fair share of our power. . .

Better to use one bomb, Two, Or three, (or more), Than for American blood to be wasted on the world's crazies.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
Small typo, Meant to say in my part 1 RFD that Con's arguments came of as inconsistent, Not consistent.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
RFD Part 1 -

Just to be clear I only looked at the arguments presented in the debating rounds when determining my vote and not what was said in the comments.

From what I've established reading this debate Pro's stance centered around showing that the nukes brought along the speedy end to the war and comparatively would have saved time, Resources and men against any of the other alternatives. The arguments came off consistent but I felt the scope was lackluster and Pro could've developed his arguments a bit better. Proving that the alternatives were less likely to bring along a more successful conclusion to the war would have been stronger had Pro talked about other theatres in the Pacific in which the United States was still engaged with Japanese forces in a prolonged struggle. So the consistency of the arguments was limited by the scope that was chosen to develop them.

On the flipside, Con's arguments came off as very consistent from the get go. I found it hard to follow where exactly Con's main stance was. Con explained that targeting civilian areas was a war crime but proceeded to support the case that non-nuclear bombs were a 'more morally superior alternative' compared the the nuclear bombs. Judging from this I'm going to assume that Con's argument about waiting the Japanese out was the main stance since the aforementioned position was quite controversial. If this was the case then Con should've spent more time developing the case that waiting the Japanese out was more viable instead of contesting the points about the B-29s because that seemed like it was going to a dead end.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
RFD Part 2 -

So the contention being boiled down to whether or not waiting the Japanese out would have been more effective I came to the conclusion that both Pro and Con had reached a stalemate. While Con did have some ground to state that there's no assumption to be made that the Japanese would have kept on fighting had the bombs not been dropped, There was still a lot of points underdeveloped by both sides. There was really no explanation by either side as to the extent of Imperial Japan's military capabilities at this stage of the war. Con did bring up a brief point to say that the war effort of Japan had effectively collapsed. But there was no real follow through about how this would have effectively led to their surrender since Con himself believed that the Americans ought to have 'worn' them out. The use of this phrasing along with Pro's case to state that the Japanese still were willed enough to engage in guerilla warfare made me believe that there was no conclusive way to prove that the war would have ended sooner or later without the bombs.

There was a minor contention about whether the bombing was the most 'moral' way of ending the war as it was considered a war crime by Con. To this extent Pro agreed that it was a war crime and Con brought up the laws of war to reinforce these sentiments. There was a concession by Pro in this regard but the point he brought up regarding the Geneva Conventions only being enforced four years after the war did punch a hole in how relevant morality was in this scenario.

To conclude;
The debate showed to me that bombing Japan was not a moral way to end the war. But the application of morality being relevant was shaky even though this part did go to Con.
But Pro's arguments that it ended the war quicker and saved more lives was not suitably tackled with an alternative that could dispute it as the best method.
Since I believe Pro's point carries more burden, The motion stands and Pro wins via a close margin.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
No annoyance at all.

on your first point, I'd say I agree, But I would also say that the Japanese were too spent to administer efficient killing tactics.

If you look at my monty python reference to the black knight, It shows that the opponent's willingness to continue the fight is not always justification to attack them. Another analogy for this could be scrappy doo, The little dog who always wanted to fight, But nobody ever took on because they knew it would be immoral.

As for my chess analogy. It is not true that the king sends all pieces to the end of a losing battle. High level chess players resigns very early in positions when they know they're lost and if the person in the winning position is forced to get a surrender, It is done by ignoring the pieces and going straight for the king, Which is the opposite of what the nukes did.

The government may represent the citizens, But the citizens themselves are not military objectives, It's a direct violation of the laws of war and it's objectively immoral.

You're right that we have no way to know if they would surrender, But we had no way to know if they wouldn't, So that puts us in the same boat there.

Your argument is compelling, But the part where it ultimately falls is the fact that the burden of proof requires that you prove the nukes to be the best option. That means you have to rule out seemingly limitless option as being inferior, Including alternative deployments of the nukes themselves. I don't see anyway that a person could prove this without falling into a slippery slope fallacy.
Posted by HolyAsian247 3 years ago
HolyAsian247
I hope my comments will not annoy you Ralph, But for fun, I will try to challenge your statement, The one after my previous post. (I am just using logic, Not going to go use statistics. Also, I'm new so I don't know if this is rude)

Refusal of Surrender is always a valid reason. If an opponent attacks you with critical efficient killing tactics on your troops, Should you not force them to surrender?

And you are right, The Japanese did lose the war, But they weren't going to lose the war that easily. We know that they have trained soldiers to sacrifice everything for the homeland, Even citizens too. In war, It's not only black and white. War is simply not fair.

To continue with your chess analogy, Let us not forget that the King would have all of its troops fight to the last man until only the King was left to be captured. The Japanese could've surrendered but they didn't. They had already lost their trades, But so what? Their trades were already stopped way before the 2 bombs. They were willing to starve than to surrender.

These civilians may have had no say in the matter, But that's only true to an extent. It is the government that represents these people and last time I checked it was the Japanese government that refused to surrender. If America was to go to war today, It doesn't matter what 20% of the people say, It is the government that declares war.

The blame shifts to their own government not on the Americans that wanted to end the war. These Americans wanted to end the war and go home to their families. These Americans showed mercy and gave them multiple chances to surrender. Japan did not surrender, Japan opted for oblivion. America could've dropped the bomb on Tokyo if they wanted to.

To say the Japanese were about to surrender is hard to prove. They were at the time based on a war-like culture, They were known for extreme loyalty and inability to surrender, And did not even surrender after one of their cities was just completely dec
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
AuroborusWrickItRalphTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.