Hiroshima and nagasaki bombing

You never actually did come back to this. Considering that it was my foundation in refuting your initial assertion, I will consider this a concession. Your primary argument was based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political decision makers, and I will reassert that such considerations are irrelevant since the decision to drop the bomb, which is what the resolution is based, was made by the American president, and the American president was not privy to the dynamics that went on in the Japanese war machine.-----I will later in the debate.-------Which is important, being if we wanted the war to end we could have did it in a peaceful manner that the Japanese do not lose face.I am critiquing your source as being very weak, and of little authority, and opinion based. For an individual of no great credentials on the subject, to toss out the allegation that this action was done out of "revenge" is in fact baseless for this debate. Your rebuttal offered nothing to change my critique of your source, and other than the dictionary, it's your only source for the basis of your opinion on this debate. -----This is just a vague red herring. If you seem to SOMETHING, bring it to the table. Even so, you, yourself have no facts to back you up.Your citing the American civil war is wholly irrelevant to this debate. Although there were more union deaths than confederate deaths, the objective was still the same, even if it wasn't met. There is no point in citing this interesting fact, just as there was no point in basing your argument against the resolution in the Japanese political/military decision making, when it was an American decision. ------Your war to war was wrong; I called you out on that.What? How do you win a war, when you are not finishing the objective therefore that part is False and NULL. The fact that the Japanese military, who were truly in control at the time, rejected the proposal would indicate that their vision of a future, with a military is a fair assessment. What other reason would they reject the proposal.The Japanese talked it around. Even in Japan, the people wanted peace. There was never unconditional surrender. Japan surrendered on one condition that the emperor's position would be assured. This is irrelevant to topic of determination whether it was a terrorist act or not, but goes to the militarily necessity and justification as it proves Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower were right all along. 2. The act was unethical and illegal, therefore US did have a choice, as anybody has a choice to commit crime or not. "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" Dr. Leo Szilard3. Furthermore using atomic weapons was military unnecessary.“In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” Dwight D. Eisenhower. Before you say it:Well, of course it was his opinion, after all, he was a general and strategist. I doubt that there were some significant nuances known to us, but not known to Mr. Eisenhower. I also doubt that any of us understand the strategies and details of that time period better than he did."The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. The Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quote. Well, that was public statement quoted in The New York Times (6 October 1945) and in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1996) by Gar Alperovitz.Hm? Legit? "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 70-71."The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. “…as the Potsdam declaration blah blah blah…” This is called "demands", almost every act of terrorism has those. Still, I fail to understand how content of such demands justifies the act of terrorism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen purely as a strategic target. But this is a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population." If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. This is clear violation of international law and war crime, due to deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate attacks, with lack of precautionary measures taken to prevent civilian casualties. "Let the Russians do it" basiclly mean if all esle fails let the Russians go in and do what they did best.Check, mate.