The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Hiroshima was not nuked

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,343 times Debate No: 85968
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Hi I will be arguing that Hiroshima was not nuked whilst my opponent (con) will argue that Hiroshima was actually nuked

Structure of debate:

R1: acceptance
R2: arguments
R3: arguments
R5: conclusion - no new sources or arguments

Good luck Con!


Hello, I firmly believe that Hiroshima was actually nuked. I'm looking forward to seeing the oppositions of the topic.
Debate Round No. 1


According to the history books, on August 6th, 1945 the U.S. dropped the uranium gun-type 'little boy bomb' - 16,000 tons of TNT equalivent on Hiroshima, and then three days later the plutonium implosion-type 'fat man bomb' 21,000 tons of TNT equivalent was dropped on Nagasaki [1]

Things that Don't Make Sense

President Truman says: "I came to the conclusion that if two hundred and fifty thousand young Americans could be saved from slaughter the bomb should be dropped" [1]

If nukes were real someone would be punished for genocide, yet no-one was. Soldiers risk their lives to save innocent civilian lives, that is their purpose. Killing civilian lives to save soldiers is a war crime!!!

The Americans had already destroyed 66 Japanese cities with a massive fire bombing campaign. In just one night, 100,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo via firebombing. Japan had aparently been hit by its first
"atomic bomb" too, which killed 140,000 people by the years' end (70,000 in first day, 70,000 injuried in first day). Why did President Truman think it was necessary to drop a second "atomic bomb"? Many historians say the bombings did not lead to the Japanese surrender, and say the Soviet declaration of war on Japan two days after the first atomic bomb was a bigger shock. [2]

It is possible that large quantities of TNT were secretly stored in a large building or underground and the President didn't want this plan to be discovered so ordered the 2nd bomb to take place. Why else would they use TNT equivalent to measure the power of nukes? It could be that they are just TNT explosions with chemicals added to them.

The photograph below shows a building called the Genbaku Dome, next to it was the Shima Hospital which was completely destroyed and which is rebuilt now, the site is considered to be ground zero. The building below is suppposedly largely in tact due to the bomb exploding almost directly above and missing its intended target - a bridge. The Little Boy bomb exploded with an energy of approximately 15 kilotons of TNT - wikipedia

I find it hard to believe that such buildings could survive an atomic blast unless of course they weren't nuked but instead destroyed by fire. The below building still stands to "remind" people nuclear bombs are real.

If you look at the below pictures (Tokyo - left, Hiroshima - right) the damage looks the same. Paper, and wooden structures with clay tiles were destroyed by the fires and fire resistant buildings are left standing.

Tactical nuclear weapons including 1 kiloton nuclear artillery shells supposedly exist today. However the British MAUD Committee report in late 1941 indicated that 5–10 kilograms of isotopically enriched uranium-235 was needed for a bomb.

Also why would the U.S. spend trillions of dollars making a couple of big bombs when smaller more effective bombs can be made (and tested) that could be fitted to more planes, and not just one plane (Enola Gay) that has to be specially adapted and a special manouvre carried out to prevent the plane being destroyed once the bomb is dropped. It doesn't make sense.

The first nuclear device supposedly ever detonated was an implosion-type bomb at Trinity Test July 16 1945, this was much more complicated than the simpler gun type bomb that contained a different material and which was never tested before use on Hiroshima. Normally simpler weapons are tested first, and they are tested before they are used!

The only purpose of a large and powerful bomb is to kill civilians, which is illegal. So why make the weapon in the first place or keep making them bigger? People often say the Japaense would fight to the bitter end when in fact many Japanese did surrender before atomic bombs were even dropped, therefore there was no reason to make such a weapon. It was simply made up probably to scare the general public to control them through fear and collect more tax.

The only video of atomic weapons used against another country just shows a plane flying and then cuts straight to the explosion, see video below, it doesn't show the bomb falling from the plane and exploding. Why is that? Maybe to hide the fact that the explosion was not nuclear but instead TNT.

The pilot - Paul Tibbets of the Enola Gay has no regrets and would do the same again despite knowing the outcome [3]. Now this doesn't make any sense, a human being could not maintain no regrets, the only way it makes sense is if he didn't actually drop a nuke due to nukes not being real.





Most of your points have been about the ethnicality of dropping a Nuclear Bomb on Hiroshima. But that's not the point of this argument. The point of this argument is debate if Hiroshima WAS or WAS NOT nuked. Let's take a look at your first argument, the Genbaku dome. It stands near Ground Zero, where the nuclear bomb detonated right above it (As you said in your argument). Because the explosion, or "air burst", was right on top of the building, it only had to withstand vertical forces. Which many buildings are designed to do.
s://; alt="" width="347" height="443" />
But horizontal forces are another thing, they aren't designed for that, thats why so many other buildings fell.

Let's move to your second point, how a few buildings survived the blast. You say that it's because that they are fireproof, but is there another possible reason? Notice that all the buildings standing are relatively "stocky" as you would say it. They may could have been able to survive the air blast that the nuclear bomb hit them with, while the other, weaker buildings did not. Plus, I'm pretty sure alot more buildings in Japan are fireproof...

Another thing to add is that "While the Japanese Cabinet did approve of the approach to the Soviets, there was no agreement on surrender terms within the government and there was no official discussion of surrender terms until after the dropping of the second atomic bomb." I believe that the reason the Americans dropped 2 atomic bombs was to show that they had lots of them and could detonate them in rapid succession, thus indimidating the Japanese and making it seem like the US would drop more if they didn't surrender.

The final point that you made that I will discuss is about the video of the bomb detonation. To my knowledge, there has been no footage of the bombs detonation. Who filmed the video of the plane anyway? The Japanese?

Now, moving on to my points. If the Nuclear bomb was not dropped, why are Japanese citizens developing cancer and tumors from radiation poisoning? An epidemiology study by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukaemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among the bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs. If it was just TNT with chemicals, why is there radiation.

Also, there are multiple eyewitness accounts of people who witnessed the drop of the atomic bomb. How do you explain that using your TNT logic? Also, if fire really was the reason for the desolation of Hiroshima... why did none of the eyewitnesses talk about it?
Why do
Debate Round No. 2


"Leaflets were dropped over cities before they were bombed, warning the inhabitants and urging them to escape the city. Though many, even within the Air Force, viewed this as a form of pychological warfare... Warning leaflets were also dropped on cities not in fact targeted, to create uncertainty and absenteeism." - wikipeadia

The U.S. leaflet campaign clearly did not intend to minimize the Japanese civilian death toll, and the Japanese civilian population were indiscrimately killed by bombing raids.

"About 10,000 of the total 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima were military personnel. Nagasaki had no military units and, of the total 140,000 deaths there, only about 150 were military. In total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian." [4]

I'm not debating the enithicality of Nuclear bombing. If things don't make sense its because we are not being told the truth. Why is no-one punished for failing to allow troops to do their job and massacring innocent people? Why weren't military targets bombed instead? I think it is because it is much easier to stockpile explosives in a civilian area and kill civilians, this would make it more believable too. I also think the bombing raids carried out over cities like Tokyo were made to hide the suspicious nature of attacking civilians in Hiroshima wth an atom bomb essentially normalizing the atrocity so people believe it was actually nuked.

You say: "While the Japanese Cabinet did approve of the approach to the Soviets, there was no agreement on surrender terms within the government and there was no official discussion of surrender terms until after the dropping of the second atomic bomb."

However "When the successful test firing of the first atomic bomb took place on 16 July 1945, Truman, negotiating with the Russians at Potsdam, decided to demonstrate America’s new power to the Soviets by bombing Japanese cities, even though he knew the Japanese were trying to surrender. To ensure the Japanese would not capitulate before the bombs could be used, he deliberately refused to guarantee the emperor’s safety, the only condition which, Alperovitz and others argued, was a sticking-point for the Japanese." [5]

The Americans couldn't have dropped two atom bombs to show the Japanese it was pointless to continue fighting - they aong with the Americans knew they had lost and wanted to surrender. The whole thing was staged to intimidate the Russians.

President Truman created a myth that 250,000 American lives were saved as a result of atom bombing Japan - the total number of civilians believed to have died from the two bombs. However there is no evidence of any top military planner or major american policy maker thinking that number of American soldiers would be lost if atom bombs were not used. In the worst case scenerio 46,000 American soldiers were predicted to die, possibly as low as 20,000 [6]

The decision to nuke Japan to save Americans and end WW2 is simply untrue. It was all about trying to contain Russia via intimidation, therefore it didn't matter whether America had nuked, all that mattered was whether Russia believed the hoax.

I'm going to counter the other points now:

Below is a photograph of the ruins of Shima Hospital which is said to have been directly below the atom bomb when it exploded. You say that the building behind it seen in the photograph only had to withstand virtical forces, but so did Shima Hospital. And why are those other buildings still standing? It can't be just because they are made of reinforced concrete, there are trees and telegraph poles left standing.

The below photograph shows a birds eye view, as you can see there are many buildings that were still standing after the "blast". The damage you can see is caused by incendiary devices.

There is no reason at all why an unedited video of the atom bomb dropping from the plane and then exploding could not be filmed. It took 43 seconds to drop. Flying escort with the Enola Gay were two additional planes, and the three planes faced no resistance. The 'Little Boy Bomb' was untested too so you'd expect it to be filmed. In fact video footage does show an arieal view of the atomic bombs exploding, this couldn't have been filmed by Japanese planes as the American bombers faced no resistance. The Japanese did detect three B-29's on their radar but strangely they thought it wasn't worth wasting ammo or fuel, they came to the perculiar conclusion that those three bombers didn't pose a significant threat, so Japanese pilots just stayed on the ground.

Radiation is not proof of an atom bomb dropping over Hiroshima. A dirty bomb also known as a radiological dispersal device is likely to have been used, radioactive material is combined with conventional explosives to contaminate an area.

Survivors would have talked about the Hiroshima firestorm and the explosion. Do have a source showing eye witnesses seeing a big bomb drop from the sky? There doesn't seem to be any film footage, thanks





hjhuwei forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Air Burst

"The bomb that went off above Hiroshima, 67 years ago this week, was set off at 600 meters above the ground. The Nagasaki bomb was detonated at 500 meters. Both of those heights were chosen to maximize damage — especially for the “flimsy” wooden houses of Japanese civilians." [8]

People are told that the bomb detonated in the air because it would be impossible for a bomber to drop the amount of TNT required to cause such an explosion, this makes nuclear bombs more believable. However there is no proof the untested little boy bomb and fatman bomb did detonate at those heights, as the bombs were not filmed falling from the sky. Only the explosion of both atomic bombs were filmed despite two other bombers being present which met no resistance. The scant evidence of a historical moment shows the whole operation was staged.

0:44 of the below video shows where contact fuses were inserted to cause the fatman bomb to detonate once the bomb hits the ground if it fails to detonate in the air.

"arming and fuzing mechanisms must be designed and engineered so that once a weapon is released and armed it will fire. An intact weapon in unfriendly hands can be turned against attackers or disabled or disassembled and copied. For these reasons, arming and fuzing systems must be absolutely foolproof... the primitive LITTLE BOY and FAT MAN bombs of 1945 had three separate and interleaved parts to their fuzing systems" [9]

Why do people say the bomb was detonated above the city when there is no proof of this?

A witness does say she saw the Enola Gay and the bomb it dropped, see 7:25 of video below

However it is not believable because the witness was a 13 year old standing outside less than a mile from where the bomb exploded so should have died. In Hiroshima almost everything up to about one mile from X was completely destroyed and the fires were pretty bad.
Also s
he can see amazing detail even though the plane was 9.4km high and she was 1km away. The Earth's surface curves out of sight at a distance of 3.1 miles, or 5 kilometers just to give an idea of the distance involved.

Many of the major cities of Japan were firebombed including Tokyo, but it seems the "atom" bombed cities were chosen because more buildings were constructed of wood which would burn and show a more complete destruction, this would impress Russia.

"New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden." [10]

This is what Harry Truman has to say:

It is clear the message he wants to get across is how powerful America is to intimidate Russia. If that was his objective it was unnecessary to actually create an atom bomb. Also it would be far cheaper and easier to fake.What would be the point of making a real atomic weapon? After killing a quarter of a million civilians, pretty much all the weapon was good for, it was obvious it would become illegal, and making them bigger would be a huge waste of money.



hjhuwei forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I have never denied that many people died in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 or at a later date due to radiation.

The Shima Hospital, according to my opponent, should only have had to withstand vertical forces yet it was completely destroyed whereas surrounding buildings of the same construction were left standing. I argue that huge quantities of TNT combined with chemicals such as Uranium were stored on the hospital foors and set off, which explains why there is a lack of video footage of the atomic bomb dropping and many other things that just don't make sense.

If the 'little boy' bomb was nuclear we should expect someone to be punished for this clear crime against humanity. It was said to have been planned to detonate in the air 500m from the ground for maximum damage to civilians, who were the target. The pilots express no regret after supposedly killing innocent people via dropping a bomb that was known at the time would not end the war sooner or save more civilians. These people would kill innocent Japanese again in mass numbers too, and yet no-one was punbished!

The 'little boy' bomb wasn't tested before use, which is odd, but even stranger, the untested bomb which would make history was not filmed by either of the three bombers as it dropped. Nor was the second bomb to fall on Japan filmed dropping despite there being absolutely no resistance in both cases. We are taught to believe that Japanese fighters thought it was better to save fuel and ammo than save a few thousand civilians.

Everything about the bombings seem staged. The soviet declaration of war should have made America reconsider dropping a second bomb, the only reason they didn't was because nuclear bombs are just stockpiles of TNT which have to be moved in secret.



hjhuwei forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mostlogical 2 years ago
Thanks for reading my debate, it was a shame Con didn't have much to say after saying he firmly believed Hiroshima was nuked but I'll have to make the next debate harder to accept. I completely forgot about adding humour lol
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Strength of opponent- Weak opponent. Not just for the forfeits, but also because of the arguments. 3 points.

arguments- Great arguments. This is exactly the type of arguments. I was hoping to see. 10 points

humor- the debate is lacking any humor. 0 points

total points- 13
Posted by U.n 2 years ago
Looks like Con is headed for a hat trick.
Posted by Grandzam 2 years ago
I am disappointed in the forfeit :(
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: 3 forfeited turns from Con = conduct point to Pro. Also I believe I saw one citation of a radiation effect research from Con; but Pro made a better use of sources citing over half a dozen web links, quotes, and youtube videos.