The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. They were both military targets.

My opponent has this misconception that the whole point of the atomic bombing was because the two cities were military targets and suddenly that justifies the act. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. They were both military targets. My opponent is for that and I am against that, therefore I am allowed to use other evidence. There was all in all, about 348,000 people in Hiroshima. Of the 130,000 to die, only 12,000 were soldiers. That means 118,000 civilians died in Hiroshima. [1] About 60,000 military personnel were between the two cities. 118,000 civilians died in Hiroshima, and that was only Hiroshima. I don't really think it matters what kind of town you lived in, that's subjective. It is obvious that these were cities, not strictly military bases. If you are trying to belittle the fact that America was actually aiming for two cities, it's not working. There was 40,000 military personnel in Hiroshima, and there was about 300,000 civilians. Try and tell me that Hiroshima wasn't a city. Then my opponent tries to say that the emperor of a 2600 year old dynasty, had absolutely no power even though he was revered like a god to all his people. I highly doubt that. My opponent doesn't even offer any sources. My opponent even admits that Japan tried to surrender. America had already broken the Japanese codes and the Japanese knew that. America already knew Japan wanted to surrender. Click on the article and read the telegrams under the heading "Japan Seeks Peace". [2] On January 20, 1945 President Truman received 5 different peace surrenders from high-level Japanese officials. The only condition was that the emperor would be safe. Japan also tried three attempts through neutral countries and tried to plea with Russia as well as the 5 peace surrenders. Japan was not only explicit and obvious about surrender but it was also official. There was absolutely no reason to drop the two atomic bombs when Japan had already been militarily defeated and had already tried to surrender. President Truman had five peace treaties that he could have signed. This is obvious evidence that America prolonged the war. Then my opponent tries to deflect the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian populated cities by asking why wasn't Tokyo bombed. This does not at all defend his cause, nor is that an actual point. But I will answer to aid my own point. Tokyo if you didn't already know was destroyed mostly by the greatest airstrike in the whole history of the Pacific War. 520 B-29's dropped 4500 tons of explosive upon Tokyo. Then 502 B-29's dropped 4000 tons of explosives on Tokyo. This destroyed 56 square miles of Tokyo, and Tokyo is Japan's capital. To put that in perspective, that would be about 27,104 football fields. [3] And before that, another air strike of 200 bombers destroyed 16 square miles. So essentially that's 34,848 football fields. So why did Tokyo not get picked? Maybe because it had already been destroyed. Like I said before, if America had lost the war, the bombing of Tokyo would have been considered a war crime. Kyoto was considered as a third area to drop another atomic bomb. Then my opponent says Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked out because America wanted to kill soldiers. Firstly I would like to point out that killing just for the same of killing does not justify killing. Japan was already defeated. Secondly I would like to point out how absurd that statement is. Are you joking me? Let me state the stats. [1] [4] Hiroshima-348,000 [1] -300,000 civilians -48,000 military personnel -118,000 civilians died -12,000 military personnel died Nagasaki-263,000 [4] -254,000 civilians -9,000 military personnel -estimated 70,000 civilians died -doesn't state that any of the military personnel died From my sources it states that 12,000 military personnel died and 188,000 civilians died. So no, America wasn't bombing the two cities just for the sake of killing some soldiers. Then my opponent asks me more questions which isn't actually a refute. America didn't accept Japan's surrender treaty, Japan accepted America's unconditional surrender. There is a big difference. For a person who's served in the military, my opponent should know. Secondly it wasn't as if America graciously let the emperor keep the throne. Remember that Japan accepted unconditional surrender which meant that they weren't sure whether the emperor would be safe. America only let the emperor stay because that helped with occupying Japan. The irony of that, is that America could have ended the war on the 20, of January 1945 when president Truman had received those 5 different peace treaties. There was absolutely no need or justification of the use of the bombs. America only used the bombs to show off to Russia that America was powerful. There was going to be a Cold War and America wanted to be on the top. Japan was merely the stage as to which America showed off to the world how powerful they were. There was no justification or need to use the bombs. Japan had already been militarily defeated, Japan was already trying to surrender. That proves that America prolonged the war just so that it could drop its newest weapon just so that it could show off. "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war." -General Curtis LeMay [2] "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," -General Dwight Eisenhower [2] Brig. General Bonnie Fellers summed up in a memo for General MacArthur: "Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place." -General Bonnie Fellers [2] And last but not least. This is an excerpt from a 12 year old school girl that survived. "Then I realized that my face, hands, and legs had been burned, and were swollen with the skin peeled off and hanging down in shreds. I was bleeding and some areas had turned yellow. Terror struck me, and I felt that I had to go home. And the next moment, I frantically started running away from the scene forgetting all about the heat and pain." [5] If you think that it was justified to bring innocent civilians into a war the way America did by using the atomic bombs then vote pro. If you think it was justified to kill pre-schoolers while they sat at school learning then vote pro. If you think that it was ok to kill normal everyday people who had little to no say in the outcome of the war then vote pro. If you don't agree with that then vote for me. [1] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... [2] http://www.ihr.org... [3] http://www.chacha.com... [4] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... [5] http://www.hiroshimacommittee.org...