America was justified in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"By August of 1945, Japan had lost it's naval power. " Yes, they did lose their naval power, but they did after the war. From (. http://en.wikipedia.org... ), "The Imperial Japanese Navy of World War II was the second most powerful navy in the Pacific War in World War II. It was the third largest navy in the world. During the first years of the war the Imperial Japanese Navy dominated the Western Pacific. However, after a series of defeats it lost control of the Western Pacific and collapsed by the end of the war. CLEARING UP MY POINTS ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT "Second most powerful navy in the Pacific War in World War II" Second in the world? That's pretty powerful. "Third largest navy in the world" The THIRD. When you look at how many countries there are in the world, that's pretty freakin' strong. "After a series of defeats it lost control of the Western Pacific" Yes, they lost control of part of the Pacific, but that was only ONE part of an entire huge ocean. They still had major control of the Northern, Eastern, and Southern parts. "end of the war" Exactly. The end of the war. That means that their navy was great until we bombed them. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ "They had no outside access to resources, which their island desperately needed. " Yes, no outside resources. But they had inside ones, if you will. They had their own resources (Japan did and still does have an expert military). Plus all the other resources they could acheive from Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Italy, before they were defeated. "Just because it was discussed does not mean i have to agree with the outcome. " I'm not saying you have to. This is a debate (It's your first one, I know), and in debates, you are supposed to convince the voters to vote for you. That's all I'm doing, bringing up a point to help my cause. "condemning ultimatums that destroyed any idea of peace. " Ultimatums do not destroy any idea of peace. This is the definition of "ultimatum":"a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in a retaliation or a breakdown in relations". ( . https://www.google.com...;) Thus, ultimatums do provide peace. And if peace is not accepted, then consequences will occur. Some of the greatest revolutions are started by ultimatums. And we offered peace. I'll give you the quote again:"This ultimatum stated if Japan did not surrender, she would face "prompt and utter destruction. " "This led to the ideas of Never Surrender. " If they had such strict policies against surrendering, why did they? "If I got a threat in the mail that said "Give up your house, your car, your wife, and your children or you will face Prompt and utter destruction. " Erm. .. here are the problems with this statement: 1. I'm sure the Post Office wouldn't even allow that kind of mail. 2. The ultimatum was not even NEARLY that strict. We offered peace, bro. "The idea that we should have demonstrated the power of the nuclear weapon" We did. Looky here: Sorry if you can't see the picture, 'cause it's a graph of nuclear tests by countries over time. America's amount is still small in the 1945 spot, but they still tested nuclear weapons. Which goes against your quoted statement above. "On an underpopulated area" Oh, so we should've just bombed a random city for no reason just for the heck of it? That seems like what you are saying. "followed by a second ultimatum" There are no second ultimatums. And according to you, ultimatums are, "condemning and destroying any idea of peace", so, in your beliefs (if you delivered them correctly), why would we offer a second one? "If you would provide a source where we called for an end to the fighting to negotiate a conditional surrender, I would believe then that would be great. " I did. The quote I keep mentioning over and over and over. "Here is one of many sources about Stalin's knowledge of the bomb" What does that have to do with anything? Stalin was an ally, you know. "as you did not seem to understand many of my points. " Oh yes I did. And as I have used Wikipedia as a source many times, I will explain why it actually is reliable so people don't attack me on that for sources. Wikipedia is just as correctable as it is incorrectable, and there are thousands of monitors that go through about every page every day checking for false edits. Plus, anyone who is immature enough to edit a Wikipedia page would probably edit a page like "pizza'. The people immature enough to do so would not even take their time to even look at a page for WWII. And as this is the final round of this debate, I have two words.