New Member Tournament: The Atomic Bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified.

I thank freedomsquared for his response and the congratulations. DEFENSE 1) Loss of LifeWhen Con says that Atomic Bombing saved lives, it doesn't make sense. Firebombings killed 500,000 people after multiple missions. Atomic Bombing killed a further 240,000 people. It did not restore any of the lives that were lost by fire bombing. How could it have possibly saved lives? Con just assumes that there would have been 4 more years of fire bombing but this is unproven. In fact Con's source says the the Japanese Emperor's viewing of the destruction caused by fire bombing was what caused him to get involved in the peace process which culminated in Japan's surrender [1]. My contention that the Atomic Bombings caused heavy casualties to innocent civilians holds true. It was totally unnecessary and certainly did not save lives. 2) Target choiceThe US could have chosen a military base to attack like Japan did Pearl Harbor. I am not condoning Pearl Harbor because it was a surprise attack. But had the US been at war with Japan during that time, it would have been perfectly acceptable as there were mostly military damage and very few civilian casualties. However, the US chose to attack Hiroshima because the mountains would focus the blast causing maximal damage and death (of civilians). True, it also had a military base, but the US deliberately targeted not just the military base but the entire city. "9/11 did have an enormous psychological effect on the population. That is, it was devastating. That is the only correlation I made between 9/11 and the atomic bombings."Is a "psychological effect" like 9/11 required to end a war and save lives? It seems more like it starts wars and takes lives as shown by 9/11. 3) MoralityJapan was reeling from the shock of the 1st bomb, their communications systems were damaged as an entire city was blown out. They had no time to make a public statement. To drop a 2nd bomb on another city killing more innocent lives, with Japan in such a shocked state was immoral and unjustified.Con only points to rumors that there was a third bomb. Then he says: "There wouldn't be proof if there was a third bomb, as we would want to hold onto the tactical advantage of uncertainty." This entire argument is based on rumors that the US supposedly had a third bomb, which wasn't used, therefore the US can claim the high moral ground. The problem is that even if there was a third bomb, which is completely hypothetical, by the time the US could have assembled it and got the materials, Japan had already surrendered, negating the need for it. So, no high moral ground can be claimed by the US for not using a possible third bomb. My opponent is also inconsistent when he dismisses the argument of Truman using the bombings to display US power to Russia [2] as speculation, while at the same pursuing arguments about the rumored "third bomb". 4) PostdamPostdam was an extremely unfair treaty. It called for Allied occupation of Japan, sovereignty of Japan being limited to minor islands etc. "You don't go to war with a country, kill thousands of soldiers, and then leave things as they were. The war would've served no purpose except to waste the lives of so many youths."My opponent is arguing what is known in economics as a sunk cost [4]. Many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to a movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price. What hapenned hapenned. You should look at how to get the maximum benefit now and not worry about whether the war served a purpose. If there is a chance of peace, it should be taken.My opponent says that Japan was not ready to surrender before the bombings as they were planning a biological attack on the US. The source for this is a site called damninteresting.com which as you can see is a hoax site. On its home page, it gives an article about the sex life of a banana (lol!) [3]. REBUTTAL1) Saved lives?It is highly debatable whether and how many people would have died if the US invaded Japan, and how soon Japan would have surrendered. The evidence I have provided in the last round and this round, shows that Japan was on the verge of surrendering. 2) Civilians not innocentCon points to one particular suicidal Banzai charge in the face of imminent capture and says that because of that last desperate attack, Japanese civilians weren't innocent. This fails to take away from the fact the the vast majority of residents of the bombed cities were innocent and never harmed the US in any way. ConclusionThe United States use of the Atomic bombings were not justified because they killed over 200,000 innocent civilians, picked targets that were bound to cause colossal civilian damage, used 2 bombs when 1 may have been enough, and used it in response to Japan's refusal to sign an unfair ultimatum. FreedomSquared, it was a pleasure debating with you. Vote Pro.Sources[1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://bit.ly...[4] http://bit.ly...