America was justified in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A great start to a promising debate, Pro! I will start by stating my argument once more. Argument: I believe that the U.S. was not justified in using the Atomic Bombs to end the war in the Pacific Theater. Next I will Begin my review of your arguments. 1) I agree with the face that the was terrible. The deaths of World War 2 were staggering and were arguably the highest amounts in any war humanity has ever known. However, in the case of the Japanese Islands, I do not believe that attack was the only way to win the war. Not only was Japan without a navy, but they were without a sufficient air force, they had few resources, and because of this, the Japanese were going to lose the war no matter what. I do agree with the fact that the war needed to end sooner rather than later, but disagree with the methods used, as I will explain later. 2) I completely understand that Truman was not the only one to support dropping the bombs on Japan. At the Yalta conference, the Big Three allies sat together and discussed the Atomic bomb. Before then, it was a fierce debate among the President's advisers. I disagree with the wording and method of the ultimatum and actually with the whole idea of an ultimatum. I will get to that in my own arguments below. My Arguments: Japan was cut off, alone, and virtually defenseless besides its considerable ground forces trapped by the threat of the Russian invasion in Manchuria and cut off on the main islands of Japan. Besides a few obstacles of the ineffective Kamikaze pilots, we ruled Air and Sea. So, we could have used any means to end the war in the Pacific. I say that the way we did it was completely and utterly wrong for the following reasons. A) To begin, we approached our goal very very wrong. We sought the unconditional surrender of a prideful, arrogant, and very misled population. We did not even entertain the idea of a conditional surrender or negotiations that would have put a stop to fighting for even a short while. As the Pro said, we were all about attack. Even in war, we should always attempt to pursue diplomacy to avoid the deaths of more innocent men, women, and children. But instead of at least trying for a diplomatic resolution, we sent out an Ultimatum that promised complete and utter destruction, even though they had seen the worst of us already and not surrendered. Before this Ultimatum, we had never shown that we had any sort of great weapon. We actually kept this a secret from our closest ally, Great Britain, until the Yalta conference (where the revelation of such a weapon was no surprise to Stalin.) Why should they have taken this threat seriously? Why should they surrender because the enemy promised to kill them? In any sense, it promised more fighting rather than less and seemed to encourage the continued fighting rather than discourage it. It was much like when Austria-Hungary produced its impossible ultimatum to Serbia at the start of World War 1. Impossible demands followed by Overwhelming force. B) Once the Ultimatum was delivered, should we not have first shown them the effects of our new bomb by dropping it off the coast of Japan within plain site of a populated area and then deliver a second warning? The reason I say this is because, just like in my first point, they had no reason to think we could bring them complete and udder destruction through anything more than the firebombings that already plagued Japan? It would have been more reasonable to demonstrate our power to the Japanese before we actually used this on them. C) If we had decided to keep the bomb a secret for a while longer and instead of continuing the fighting, had asked japan for a truce and offered the idea of negotiations, then there would be a possibility to end the war by diplomacy rather than the bombs. It may have appeared unlikely to be accepted, but I think the Japanese would have at least taken the idea seriously. By August of 1945, the Japanese emperor was looking for a way to save face with his most indoctrinated people and make peace with the United States and her Allies. The only problem was the Military was not under control of the civilian government, a flaw that actually started the war between China and Japan in the early 1930's in a fraudulent attack set up by the Japanese military to give reason to invade Manchuria. If the emperor was at least given a chance to accept such a truce, it might have been possible to end the war diplomatically rather than forcefully. However, the allies were against giving them this chance. D) Finally, I believe that other more sinister factors were present in the decision to show that we had such a weapon. The Soviet Union had for a while then known about the Manhattan Project and showed no surprise at the Yalta conference. I believe the dropping of the atom bombs and the absolute use of force was not as much a want to end the war quickly and that the bombs were the only choice, but to show the Soviet union that one, America would stop at nothing to win and two, to show that we had something no one else had and to fear us. In the end, it was more of a political statement to the rest of the world than a wish to end the war as quickly as possible. I will not forfeit and this is definitely going to be an excellent debate!