Resolved: The Atomic Bombings of Japan were justified.

My opponent has jumbled some points together so I'll see if I can group these together as he had them. Contention 1: Unecissary. The fighting mindset between the two nation's were intense as both nation's feared the other and took high extremes the Japanese were terrified of American retaliation as seen in the suicided at the Battle of Saipan as I showed in the second Round. The Japanese in turn treated the US POWs harshly. They had what was called Hell ships which were disguised as Japanese cargo ships, but were crammed full of US POWs and would often be sunk by US submarines. In the Phillipeans the Japanese were given orders to kill all American POWs once US troops landed on the beach. A USMC Sergent testified to this atrocity that occured. "In 1944. . . Tahara came to me and advised "I am very sorry — we must all die." Tahara told me that orders had been issued by Tokyo which would require, the moment the first American set foot on Japanese soil, that all POWs be killed and that the camp authorities then commit suicide. Shortly afterwards, the Japs began daily drills. A platoon of Japs would arrive at our camp from Himeji barracks (they were required to move on the double for the 11 kilometers), hastily set up their machine guns to completely encircle the camp and execute other maneuvers clearly indicating a plan they wished to execute without mistake. Their arrival, their maneuver, their critique, and their departure took place two or three times each week. The . . . authorities made mention that the soldiers were being trained to protect us from irate civilians who might wish to harm us if U.S. troops started to invade. On one occasion, I made a point blank statement to the [Japanese second in command], Sgt. Fukada, that it was regrettable that we should have to die after so long a term in prison camp — he agreed and stated he would have liked to have lived after the war was over, perhaps the country would some day be a good country again. I believed that orders directing massacre of the prisoners had been issued and am still of that opinion." (http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com...) With such tenacity of fighting it seemed unlikely that the war was coming to an end. My opponent stated that the Emporer could call off the War, but he fails to acknowledge the evidence that I have brought up in past rounds stating that the military wouldn't allow it and they were actually planning a military takeover of the Japanese government that was stoped thanks to the US atomic bombings not only that, but the Japanese military had installed Martial Law to prevent the Japanese from surrendering which also went uncontested. To add to that Emporoer Hirohito had to call a second meeting after the first meeting after the atomic bombings came up with a no surrender. The second was a deadlock even through the second atomic bombing until the next day when the Emporer had made a suprise appearance to persuade them to vote differently and they did. The emporer did not override the ruling of the cabinet and if he did as you stated he would have done so after the first Atomic bombing, but didn't. (http://www.authentichistory.com...) Next my opponent brings up the effectiveness of the fire raids, but this is where things get intersting. Total deaths from both atomic bombings combined is 105,000 vs. the death count from Operation Meeting House (fire bombing of Tokyo) 125,000 deaths! (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This outright shows that the atomic bombings were better than the fire bombing as the fire bombings killed more people and did way more damage. My opponent is brining up a harsher alternative to the atomic bombings and this only shows and we can all agree that the power of the atomic bombings would've been a better preferance than fire bombings. Though my opponent states that the same effect would've happen for Hiroshima, but with that being said the Japanese would've viewed it as another dud compared to if we told them what it was. The Japanese were also conscious of the Germany devolpement of their workings on the atomic bomb and that the US used Operation Paperclip to take these scientists to build our bombs. They also knew of Operation Trinity where we detonated our first atomic bomb in the desert, but still nothing happend. As for the fear factor it was obvious that the fire bombings had no effect upon the path to their surrender why to try out a new weapon on them. Contention 2: Saving Lives and the Cold War. I have already showed that the Emporer wouldn't have had useful effects upon ending it early as I've shown in my last contention so the impacts can be extended across the board. Contention 3: Nagasaki Though the Japanese may not have believe the leaflets the US still gave them a great warning of this event before the occurances of both atomic bombings and when the first bomb fell they were still sending out leaflets to the Japanese warning of another bombing. It was not heeded and the Japanese suffered a great loss at Nagasaki. My opponent attempts to discount my sources as they weren't removed from the War, but I offer up Secritary Stinson who was an anti-atomic bomb advocate during the war. In the 1947 edition of Harper’s, former Secretary of War Stimson had seemingly changed his views on the bombings then what Con has stated when he stated: “All the evidence I have seen indicates that the controlling factor in the final Japanese decision to accept our terms of surrender was the atomic bomb.” On June 1st the US Scientific Panel wrote the following: “Mr. Byrnes recommended, and the Committee agreed, that the Secretary of War should be advised that, while recognizing that the final selection of the target was essentially a military decision, the present view of the Committee was that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers’ homes; and that it be used without prior warning.” However the US did give the Japanese warning, as stated before, with the leaflets warning the Japanese of the bombing that would occur. Truman, who had just inherited the war from FDR, was advised by military, scientists, and political to drop the bomb and to end the war. Contention 4: Japanese War Crimes This point was dropped so I extend it across the board. Though I agree for the most part that it’s not civilized, but with the American “Eye for an Eye” type philosophy the US public and much of the world had found it justifiabled for the Japanese War Crimes from the Rape of Manking to the Baatan Death March to the butchering of American POWs. This was even seen when Truman made the announcement of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima by him saying that the Japanese have been paid back many fold showing that he himself was supporting such philosophy and seemingly Overman theory. (http://www.authentichistory.com...) WIth that I thank my opponent for a great debate that could've used an extra round and I urge voters to vote Pro. Thank you.