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

Was Using Atomic Bomb on Japan GOOD AND A WISE CHOICE?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,213 times Debate No: 54949
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I think bombing Japan was a good and a wise choice.
First of all Japan ignited the war between U.S and Japan by attacking Pearl Harbor.
They destroyed 18 battleships, more than 180 combat-planes, and killed more than 3400 people in Hawaii.
If U.S didn't use the atomic bombs, the war would have continued and more people would have died on both side. Because Soviet Union was coming from the top of Japan. Also, Japan had 9 million people, ready to fight with American soldiers if they land-attacked. It means that 9 million people would have died because Japan said that, "We will fight until the last man standing!". And atomic bomb killed only 140,000 to 200,000 people, but if U.S land-attacked JAPAN, 9million people would have died.


I disagree that the atomic bombing of Japan was a good and wise choice, and I will assume that the Burden of Proof lies with Pro to prove that the Use of the Atomic bomb on Japan was a good and wise choice.

Before I start my opening arguments which is mainly quotes from several prominent Americans in the US Armed Forces and the chief architect of the Atom Bomb, I would like to call you out on the causal simplification of the events of December 7, 1941 which in truth resulted from a damaging US trade embargo that crippled the Imperialist war machine of the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces as well as the gross negligence of the US military intelligence that had cracked Imperial Japanese codes.

Definitions from the Merriam Webster Dictionary

Good: virtuous, right, commendable <a good person> <good conduct> (2) : kind, benevolent <good intentions>

Wise: characterized by wisdom : marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment; exercising or showing sound judgment : prudent <a wise investor>

Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities; the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

Why was it a bad choice to drop the bomb?

1. It was militarily unnecessary

The use of the Atom bomb was opposed by high ranking military officers and deemed unecessary in defeating the Empire of Japan.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." -Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government waspreparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." -Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953–1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. 312–313.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." -Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

2. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both considered War Crimes and Immoral.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalled Gen. Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop the nuclear bombs on Japan, said: " 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

"I think it made it very difficult for us to take the position after the war that we wanted to get rid of atomic bombs because it would be immoral to use them against the civilian population. We lost the moral argument with which, right after the war, we might have perhaps gotten rid of the bomb.

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" -Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand (

Debate Round No. 1


DavidK forfeited this round.


Aaaand Its a forfeit, therefore all arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 2


DavidK forfeited this round.


Rayze forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


DavidK forfeited this round.


Rayze forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MailboxVegetable 7 years ago
Don't forget that in this atomic bombing, only 5 percent of the Japanese casualties were military. As soon as we allow ourselves to indiscriminately kill civilians in war time, we lose our moral high ground. A military embargo of Japan and surrounding of the islands by both U.S. and Soviet troops would have spared many more lives than massacring two cities of 95 percent civilians. And in addition to this, the reason why we chose these two cities was basically because we hadn't bombed them at all up to that point. We wanted to see the exact amount of damage these nuclear bombs could do, and in desiring so we chose civilian cities to be massacred. The numbers of projected casualties if we didn't bomb them was actually exaggerated so that they could justify it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff

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