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

Was the Nuclear Bombs on Japan a Good Idea?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,239 times Debate No: 45862
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I believe it was a good idea because not only did the bombs finally force Japan to submission it actually saved the lives of many American as well as Japanese lives.

1. If we would have invaded and Operation Downfall was approved then the estimated amount of casualties would have been;
1a: "An April 1945 report projected casualties of 1,202,005"including 314,619 killed and missing"in Operations Olympic and Coronet, and more if either of the campaigns lasted more than 90 days "
1b: "To put these numbers in some perspective, the losses for the Normandy invasion, from D-Day through the first 48 days of combat in Europe, were 63,360"
1c: "atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. Instantly, 70,000 Japanese citizens were vaporized."
1d:"a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, where 80,000 Japanese people perished."
While these numbers are very large they are no where near the amount of deaths that would have been lost if the United States would've invaded Japan.


2. Not to mention that Japan even though on the defensive still had an extremly large army ready to defend the Homeland;
2a:"It still had 4,965,000 regular army troops and more in the paramilitary reserves."

2b. Even the woman and the children of Japan were trained in some way to fight the American forces
2b:"Old men, women, and children were trained with hand grenades, swords, and bamboo spears and were ready to strap explosives to their bodies and throw themselves under advancing tanks."
Meaning that the U.S military would have to be forced to fire upon women and children in order for themselves to stay alive which would result in many casualties.


3. We also gave them a chance to surrender. We gave them fair warning that if they did not surrender they would be destroyed
3a:"First, an Allied demand for an immediate unconditional surrender was made to the leadership in Japan. Although the demand stated that refusal would result in total destruction"
3b:"The Japanese military command rejected the request for unconditional surrender"



it was bad because a little guy named barack obama survived the bombing and now he is coming back for revenge against america
Debate Round No. 1


It seems my opponet doesn't truly wish to debate seeing how Barack Obama wasn't born in the 1940's and he/she has seemed to have ignored my points on how the Japan bombings were more beneficial than a mainland invansion


calmyoself forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My competitor didn't show up my arguemnts don't need changing


calmyoself forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by marinaspins 6 years ago
i agree it was a good idea. i mean japan could have surrendered after the first bomb instead of waiting til after the second one. in the end, it made japan look weak, but i think it benefited the ftre economy of japan also. they were able to completely rebuild large cities, increasing their population. some could also argue that the bombings started or ignited the cold war, with nuclear warfare. the bombings pretty much ended the war so if that didnt happen, how would have the war ended?
Posted by AmericanDebate 6 years ago
i agree with you
Posted by flyingavocadosofdoom 6 years ago
the fire raids on japan were way worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. they didn't help win the war. burned people alive.
Posted by ElCoyote 6 years ago
Posted by bubbatheclown 6 years ago
Little known fact:
The US sent flyers to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, warning them that these two cities would be bombed. I think it's the Japanese government's fault for:
A. Starting the war.
B. Not evacuating those two cities.

The US played it by the book. It was Total War, and those civilian were rightfully considered potential soldiers. Even then, the US gave them the chance to escape destruction. The US has little to feel guilty about when it comes to bombing Japan in WWII.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Defro 6 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually gave arguments with sources, therefore he gets points for arguments and sources. Con's argument is a complete run on sentence, losing him points in spelling and grammar. Con is a jerk, losing him points in conduct.
Vote Placed by Wylted 6 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF

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