One of the most controversial moves of WWII was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On the pro side, Henry I. Miller
writes:"During World War I, Europe lost most of an entire generation of young men. Combatant fatalities alone were approximately 13 million. Memories of that era were still fresh three decades later. In 1945, Allied military planners and political leaders were correct, both tactically and morally, in not wanting to repeat history. It was their duty to weigh carefully the costs and benefits for the American people, present and future. Had they been less wise or less courageous, the American post-war “baby boomer” generation would have been much smaller."
However, not all agree that it was necessary to achieve victory
. Christopher Check, in his
article for
Catholic Answers writes:
"[T]he vast majority of the victims were civilians. Why were the city
centers chosen as ground zero, where civilian populations were most
dense, rather than the industrial suburbs or the ports?
The bombings also violated the condition of proportionality. Necessarily
tied to the question of proportionality is the insistence on
“unconditional surrender,” which inevitably inspires both sides to
resort to desperate means. Once an aggressor has been rendered neutral,
to drive him to accept humiliating terms does not meet the Church’s
requirement to seek peace by every possible means.I personally am conflicted on this issue. Part of me says that it was necessary to end the war and to get Japan to surrender; however, some sources say that Japan was already ready to surrender - they just weren't willing to submit to US terms. On that side, the bombs would not be justified because it caused great civilian loss for little benefit.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
A similar debate was here if you wanna check it out:
http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/992/were-the-atomic-bombings-necessary
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.16  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 15%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
The bombing had brought radiation to the area which is not a short term problem, but rather a much long term issue bringing the US possible costs in the future of the bombif or attack which also killed many. Although, the war could have killed many Americans and others as well, although it killed many japanese and others with the attack or also called bombing.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
The choice is definitely not humanitarian given the fact that using nuclear weapons will cause huge long-term effects lasting generations in an area. The fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are industrial cities with a large population makes the whole choice less morally acceptable.
In fact, because of the United States' choice to use nuclear weapons in Japan, the Stalin regime started to fasten its development of nuclear weapons to achieve a balance as the Cold War started to emerge. Overall, the action does more harm than good morally and politically.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
Now they weren't trying to surrender unconditionally, but the conditions they asked for were basic and the key one - agreeing not to take action against the Japanese Royal Family - was something the USA decided against doing anyway.
We must also remember that unconditional surrender wasn't even a must or some deeply held moral desire, it was something Roosevelt spontaneously pulled out of his add in a conference in Casablanca in January 1943 without consulting anyone else or any of the Allies and just got a life of it's own. Many people within the administration and in the military spoke out against it as needlessly prolonging the war. MacArthur's Southwest Pacific Command explained "to dethrone, or hand, the emperor would cause a tremendous and violent reaction from all Japanese. Hanging of the Emperor to them would be comparable to the cruxifiction of Christ to us. All would fight to die like ants."
The Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew said "Surrender by Japan would be highly unlikely regardless of military defeat, in the absence of public undertaking by the President that unconditional surrender would not mean the elimination of the present dynasty if the Japanese people desire it's retention."
You can find similar sentiments from James Forrestal (Secretary of the Nazy), Henry Stimson (Secretary of War), John McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War) and Admiral Leahy (JCOS).
Truman stuck by his statement for political reasons, it simply wasn't necessary.
Not only that, but dropping the bombs didn't even amount to much. The Allies were already doing comparable damage with conventional bombing campaigns, wiping out entire cities like Toyama and in one bombing campaign (Operation Meetinghouse) inflicting more death and destruction that either atomic bomb.
So why use them and why did Japan surrender? The Soviets is the answer to both questions, although of course as discussed above Japan were already trying to surrender.
Prior to the successful Trinity test, the Allies had been staking it on the Soviets to bring to war to a swift end. It has been recognised by every nation, including Japan itself, that the entry of the Soviets into the war would be a death blow. Japan was being pushed to the limit already and the addition of the Soviets would spell the end.
However with the news of the successful test of a nuke, the dynamic changed. The USA and UK were already eyeing up the Soviet Union as the enemy in the next war. With the bomb was the possibility of freezing out the Soviets and going back on the concessions agreed upon at Yalta. They actually stopped them from signing the Postdam decleration, even though the Soviets had attended on the basis that they would sign it and that doing so would have been a clear signal about Soviet intentions and would have only hastened Japanese surrender.
Now the USSR invaded pretty much as the bombs were dropping and in a matter of a couple of weeks were on there way to completely wiping out Japan's mainland holdings and had inflicted as much damage as the allies had managed after years of war. This was a massive and devastating blow to the Japanese, moreso than the bombs - which after all did nothing that hadn't already been done several times over by conventional firebombing campaigns.
Suzuki, president of Japan, said at the time that they had to surrender or "the Soviet union will take not only Manchuria, Korea, Katafuto, but also Hokkaido. This would destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States."
Deputy Chief of Staff General Torashiro Kawabe said: "it was only in a gradual manner that the horrible wreckage which had been made of Hiroshima became known... in comparison, the Soviet entry into the war was a great shock when it actually came. reports reaching Tokyo described Russian forces as 'invading in swarms'. It gave us all the more severe shock and alarm because we had been in constant fear of it with a vivid imagination that 'the vast red Army forces in Europe were now being turned against us'"
Admiral Toyodo said: "I believe the Russian participation in the war against Japan rather than the atom bombs did more to hasten surrender."
Leuitenent General Sumihisa Ikeda, director of Central Planning, said "Upon hearing of the Soviet entry into the war, I felt our chances were gone."
The Army Ministry directly stated "The Soviet participation in the war had the most direct impact on Japan's decision to surrender."
The US War department conducted a post-bombing study in 1946 entitled "Use of Atomic Bombs on Japan" which found "little mention... of the use of the atomic bomb by the United States in the discussions leading up to the decision.... it is almost a certainty that the Japanese would have capitulated upon the entry of Russia into the war." (Emphasis mine)
The point of view was backed up by many senior people.
Truman Chief of staff declared the bombs against "every Christian ethic I have ever heard of" and stated the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender... the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."
General Douglas MacArthur consistently stated the war could have been finished months earlier with modified surrender terms.
General Henry Arnolds said "atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse".
General Curtis LeMay said "Even without the atomic bomb, Japan would have surrendered in two weeks."
Admiral ernest Kind, Chester Nimitz and William Halsey made similar comments, calling it unnecessary.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke said "We brought them down to an abject surrender through accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew we didn't need to do it, we used them to experiment for two atomic bombs."
The purpose was to to end the war in the USA's favour rather than the USSR's as well as to sideline Russia in upcoming negotiations and place the USA and the pre-eminent world-power.
It was completely unnecessary for forcing Japan's surrender
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
Negligible number of politicians or military were hit in the blast, it targeted civilians and was American International Police culture at its worst.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree with you that the US shouldn't have nuked Japan, but it should be noted that the US had no idea of the magnitude of the long-term problems the nuke would bring. So this isn't a valid reason to why the US shouldn't have done it since they didn't know this information.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say that they "used Japan as a testing grounds to test the real maximum of what it could result in."
If this statement is true, then your original statement that "they knew exactly how devastating it would be" would be wrong. If they needed to test its full magnitude then they wouldn't have known its full magnitude. It is a clear contradiction.
I agree with the second part of your statement, that they used Japan as testing grounds to see the effects, but I don't agree with the first part, that they knew the power of the effects.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is what I said. My original statement was, "the US had no idea of the magnitude of the long-term problems the nuke would bring."
Magnitude - the great size or extent of something
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
As they were the aggressors, I don't take issue with them covering the cost over America.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/pearl-harbor-false-flag-75th-anniversary/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5432931
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Do you think they missed? Are you that naive?
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186815/The-nightmare-aftermath-Hiroshima-Parents-carry-burned-children-past-corpses-rubble-rare-photographs-taken-days-atomic-bomb-killed-140-000-people.html
TELL ME HOW MANY WERE MILITARY OR POLITICIANS? HOW MANY INNOCENT?!!!!
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.18  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Same guy saying that then goes to say "Say that I steal a TV from you, now that is unjustified, but say that you caught me on camera and didn't do anything about it. If I steal from you again, it is still wrong, but you had knowledge that I might come back, and your inaction gives me motivation to continue actions until you take action yourself. "
Psychopathic maniac I tell you this straight. You are saying that those killed by the bomb had a say in their government not surrendering, and think really you are making me furious with blood-boiling rage at what you are saying here. Go to Japan, fly there and ignore this weeaboo anime culture, go to real Japan. ask the elderly of the truth of Hiroshima and how their own government laughed at them being hit. In Japanese culture, from the Samurai through to the Kamikaze Pilots of WW2, Japanese authority loves to use its own people are disposable pawns. Their government betrayed them, they knew what USA would do and those hit were not at all deserving of what happened.
"Obviously, there was a lot of innocent people that were killed, and very few people were actually members of the military or political by nature."
Yes, genius, oh yes, obviously you are damn right it is OBVIOUS AS HELL AND YOU ARE DEFENDING IT.
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
(made edit for spelling errors):
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
"I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong, than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil. "
Malcolm X
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/lists/authors/top_10_malcolm_x_quotes
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you say this:
Then politicians are the least heroic of any society even if what they stand for is right. I agree entirely with you. MLK was allowed to be a successful coward because Malcolm X and his crew said 'hey white people, you either listen to MLK or deal with us'. MLK would have been tossed to the curb and prevented from making a single speech had it not been for the Malcolm X's and John Lewis' of his movement.
As you're clearly raised in a conservative white neibhborhood you may not know about JL:
https://www.biography.com/people/john-lewis-21305903 Read, he is almost more admirable than MX (but MX I love for different reasons than admiration).
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Onto the debate at hand, you seem to propose that the brittle and imposing nature of MX caused more change than MLK. The difference is, are we going to achieve black rights by threatening violence or by proclaiming peace to millions of people. While threats may seem like a short term victory, it will never cause change, it will make your "at the time superiors" hate you even more and not want to give you what you desire, whereas the peaceful person who exposes the wrongdoings of the system will force the "superiors" to give concessions and end segregation. However, I fail to see where this correlates with the bombings on Japan. All men may have had heroism, but threatening violence is not heroic, making change without violence, suffering through violence taken on you, is more heroic than trying to fight fire with gasoline.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
2. Where does this correlate with the bombings on Japan?
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your logic seems to not only condone otherwise immoral behaviour but seems like it actively encourages war crimes - as after the first crime you just keep on blaming the victim for not surrendering to protect their civilians now that they've seen you're willing to kill them..
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
You have already effectively conceded that in the first instance the act was immoral due to the massive harm to civilians it caused: "Obviously, there was a lot of innocent people that were killed, and very few people were actually members of the military or political by nature"
Nothing about that changes with the second bomb. The onus is on the USA not to commit war crimes, not on the Japanese to surrender as soon as war crimes are committed against them. Your backwards logic incentives war crimes if anything as it puts the blame on the victim rather than the perpetrator.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra