Dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

(I'm new to this by the way, and I'm sure I will pick up how you set out your arguments, but for now, I'm going to try and do it as simply but effectively as possible.) 1. My opponent makes the contention that Japan were not about to surrender. 2. My opponent also makes the contention that America knew exactly how to use the bomb. Firstly, you have provided a lot of evidence and text proving your point, but as a matter of fact, Japan were on low rations of clothing, food and weapons which would have made it almost impossible to continue fighting to the end. So on the contrary, Japan simply did not enough resources to carry on fighting. Secondly, you have explained that America had full knowledge of the bomb, but what I would like to know, very simply, is if America had tested the bomb for a somewhat lengthy amount of time; why did they not come across the effects of radiation sickness? After all, that was a great killer in the end. And a lot of people in Japan of our generation are still suffering the effects of the atom bomb, which, of course, was not intended. ************* 1) My opponent has explained utilitarianism to me. 2) My opponent has also provided an argument for the Demonstration to Germany. 1) Yes, as I mentioned in the beginning, the Japanese were not perfect at all. They had bombed Pearl Harbour but if I'm not mistaken, the Japanese did not just use one bomb which wiped out the vast majority of people living in that area, I am sure Japan had used far more than just the one bomb on Pear Harbour. So, if America had retaliated with the same quantity of atomic bombs, the effects would be much more disastrous than America. My point is, America had created such a terrible bomb, that if they'd have constructed the same amount of bombs used on Pearl Harbour, then Hiroshima would most likely not exist today. 2) On that topic, you have me. The Germans would have most likely constructed such a destructive bomb and used it on the rest of the countries i.e England, Russia, America e.t.c which had gone to war with them. But why use the bomb on the Japanese, why not use them on the Germans, because, at the end of the day, they had started the war. The Japanese were not much better, I do agree, however why not use the same bomb on Japan that they had used on Pearl Harbour, because they had not gone to such extremes as the Germans. ******************* I shall now present my own arguments. 1) Targeting a civilian habitat. The Americans, did know that plenty of innocent people had lived there, they knew the bomb would wipe out the many Japanese people that were going about their daily business. Whereas in Pearl Harbour, at least the people there were soldiers, they had a part in the war. Those people, had nothing to do with the war, therefore, I label this a civilian attack. 2) Radiation Sickness. I briefly touched on this above. If the finest scientists from around the world had investigated and tested this properly, why were they not aware that it would later give people leukemia? Not only the the people who died from the effects of radiation sickness horrifically (hair loss, bleeding from the mouth, purple spots visible on skin) but people way later, in this era who are STILL suffering from effects of the atom bomb. They are completely disowned and are living on the edges of society, for the Americans mistake. *********************************** I hope I have cut across my opinion loud and clear, and I'm sorry if any of the information wasn't quite to your satisfactory, as I said, I'm new at this, I am ready for your argument. Affirmed.