America was not justified in dropping the bombs on Japan.

As the negation I will first being going over issues with the affirmative's definitions, establishing contentions, and then refuting my opponents case. First of all, my opponents definition falls short as it does not adhere to the true meaning of justified. For something to be justified, it has to appeal to the said society's ethical values. With that, I will be upholding the societal value of utilitarianism, simply meaning the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Although I win in the case of definitions, through refutation I will also win on my opponents. Contention 1- Dropping the bombs was the only means in which America could achieve victory. Sub-point A: American soldiers were spread to thinly. During World War 2, American soldiers were spread around the world. From Guam and Okinawa, to Germany and France, the United States did not have the means to continue sending troops around the world. Spreading the forces too thinly would have been detrimental to the war effect. Instead, America took the most sensible route and preserved soldiers' lives. Sub-point B: Japan is too fierce of an enemy to take by any other means. Japanese soldiers during World War 2 held far too much pride to be overtaken on the home field. Japanese soldiers held the samurai code of bushido close to their hearts and fought with it in their spirits. The Japanese were taught to fight to the death as seen in their Kamikaze tactics. I do not intend to be racist with these claims, only to highlight the institutionalized pride within the Japanese forces at the time. Because of this, Americans could never attack by any other means. American forces had taken Okinawa with nearly as many casualties as the Japanese during the battle. Attacking the homeland would only cause more bloodshed and ultimately cost the people more. Officials within the United States Army had actually calculated the casualty rating for a land attack as opposed to dropping the bombs and found that dropping the bombs caused significantly less losses for both sides. Contention 2- President Harry Truman's decision was dire and untimely but he chose what was best for the people of the United States. As the United States entered the war, they were struck hard by the sudden death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Proceeding him was Harry Truman. Truman was put in an extremely unlucky position as he was forced to, within the first few months of his presidency, to make the decision as to whether or not to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. Beforehand, Truman was completely unaware of the bombs' existence. He had to make a spur of the moment decision, and as president he did what he felt was the best for the American people. Therefore, Truman was justified in his actions. Now moving on to refutations: My opponent's case relies on the idea that America did not warn Japan of their intent to drop bombs. However, this is completely false as the United States gave Japan a warning to surrender six days in advance. Despite this warning, Japan would not give in. Because of this, the United Sates dropped their first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 5th. They again asked for surrender but Japan continued to refuse. America dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki prompting a Japanese surrender. Under my opponents guidlines, America was justified in their actions. Under mine, America was justified in their actions. Therefore, through casework and refutation, I believe that I have successfully proven that America was justified in dropping the bombs in Japan.