The U.S. was justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Thankfully,my opponent has posted another remark questioning my claims in the debate. He has even tried fending the emotional arguments off by claiming them to be a 'haphazard presentation unfounded in evidence' with a 'contextually-poor poetry' and misconstrued generalizations. He makes a mockery out of the death of the various impeccable and innocent civilians who died without a cause, some of who even became a prey to the irrefutable act of 'suicide'. In fact, my learned opponent debates a topic which he himself isn't fully aware of. Unfortunately, his assumptions are truly based on hearsay and I myself am not fully convinced with the fact that his grandparents or his parents might have even shared anything about the actual devastation of the World War II. I silently moan, for his predicament and beliefs are irrecoverable and unfounded. He himself is not aware of the series of events that took place in the war and is so damn proud of it, that he criticizes the reality and tries to make wrong the right. His arguments make me realize his pitiable condition as well as his stand at the global basis and he makes way to denigrating others in a field where he himself is devoid of complete knowledge about a particular subject.Firstly, he claims that his opponent reflects a poor grasp of history but unfortunately, however worthy he may be, he has not struck the bull's eye this time. He in fact, does not pay heed to the fact that his opponent may be even more deserving than he himself. Returning back to the debate, my opponent is perhaps himself 'misconstrued' in understanding the depth of the question of why the U.S. didn't blast another country. He replies by saying 'Japan was the country engaged in the world war,' but is it that it was the sole country engaged in the war? Well, there was a pretty good number of countries involved in it ranging from USSR to U.K. and Germany.' So why didn't the U.S. attack some other country?' was my question and I am pretty sure that his abridged and inadequate knowledge might not have a reasonable answer for this question. He criticizes me on the grounds that 'there's not a single cited source and many fallacies' but he himself is unaware about his extraordinary intelligence which is only capable of citing sources from the net to prove himself in part because his own intelligence isn't enough to contradict the allegations made. He says that Japan attacked U.S. to end the World War II and saving many more lives. He also cites the exemplary Truman's speech to prove himself but would he still question and arouse his voice if I answer him 'Tit for Tat'? I appreciate his awareness about the speech of the 33rd president of U.S., H.S.Truman but I believe that he hasn't till now been exposed to what the Federal Council of Churches said in 1946 "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible." And in fact not only his opponents, he considers himself above all the scientists who disagreed with the blast as morally indefensible. Led by Dr.James Frankseven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee, advising the president in 1945,saying:"If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons."Mark Selden writes, "Perhaps the most trenchant contemporary critique of the American moral position on the bomb and the scales of justice in the war was voiced by the Indian jurist Radhabinod pal, a dissenting voice,who balked at accepting the uniqueness of Japanese war crimes." Pal observed "This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War."Now, my opponent will obviously remark that U.S. attacked Japan only because it acquired the attack prior to the happening. But I have a source cited even against this.Selden concludes that despite the war crimes committed by the Empire of Japan, nevertheless, "The Japanese protest correctly pointed to U.S. violations of internationally accepted principles of war with respect to the wholesale destruction of populations." The events proceeded in some what this manner:"The US had, with the treaty of Versailles,ensured that Japan was looked down as inferior because it was a small Asian nation. They had wished to gain more land, so they didn't have to rely heavily on imports of oil, wheat and such from other countries. Instead, they were given a few islands in the pacific. The land they had received for their service in World War I enraged the Japanese people and government as it was unjust and racist. They had during the discussions tried to include a clause on racial equality, but AMERICA managed to keep that from happening. Since US ships sailed into Tokyo harbour and forced them to open up to trade in 1853 they soon changed their way of life, copying the European way for their way of ruling, army and other things. Not only did they have a 60% unemployment rate, there were many famines as a result of not being able to import enough food to support the population. The US replied by not exporting as much oil and freezing Japanese assets as "Punishment". US responded by completely cutting off all oil exports to Japan, freezing all assets and encouraging other countries to do the same. The US has successfully backed Japan against a wall. The American navy then moved their base to Hawaii, Pearl Harbour, in range of the Japanese bomber planes and in range for the US to attack Japan. The Japanese took this as a threat and decided, after all the suffering and loss the US had caused them, they should strike the US. It was all a pre-planned show, the result of this was bombing pearl harbour."This resembles the case, where US was bullying the little kid only to find that the little kid could bite back.Oh,and certainly my opponent says that Japan consists of 144 countries not two. So what he means really is that the intensity of the bomb could only hamper two of its cities. An open question to the voter's,"Do you really think that only two of Japan's cities were devoured?" Well my belief about my opponent has now come true. My knowledgeable has clearly paved the path for us to heed to his foolishness. Well now he must have understood why I started merely with 2 paragraphs which was just to test his skill. But he has surprised me to an unbelievable extent. But, nevertheless, I still am intrigued to know more about his views and his ideas are most welcome. After all, I don't think my voters will be satiated with what he has written till now. This will surely give him a cut throat competition, I believe. Unlike my intelligent and most hard working opponent, I would now request my voters to be unbiased and vote for the one who has really put in effort, the one who is deserving.