Hiroshima and nagasaki bombing

"However, I'd like to point out that that angle of argument is wholly irrelevant to the resolution: " It was a reasonable decision to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at that time in world history."The decision to drop the bomb was made by the American president Harry Truman, and what was happening in the Japanese government had only a bearing on that decision only in so far as the limited intelligence on what happened in the Japanese government and military strategists, that reached the president. I submit that the vast bulk of Japanese military planning and internal interactions were not known to the president, and were of secondary consideration to the decision to drop the bomb. The primary consideration was, 'would it effectively end the war', and 'would it end the Americans dying in the war against Japan'." - pro"I come back to this later." - conYou never actually did come back to this. Considering that it was my foundation in refuting your initial assertion, I will consider this a concession. Your primary argument was based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political decision makers, and I will reassert that such considerations are irrelevant since the decision to drop the bomb, which is what the resolution is based, was made by the American president, and the American president was not privy to the dynamics that went on in the Japanese war machine."I'd also like to call into question the source that my opponent used to base his argument. Doug Long who apparently wrote a non published short summary of events, is an obscure Associate Professor at an unremarkable college. Citing him as a reference is pretty weak as a source, and from looking at his assessment of the war, and the dropping of the bomb, it is understandable why he is an Associate Professor." - PRO"Are you attacking him or his sources? This is irrelevant." - ConI am critiquing your source as being very weak, and of little authority, and opinion based. For an individual of no great credentials on the subject, to toss out the allegation that this action was done out of "revenge" is in fact baseless for this debate. Your rebuttal offered nothing to change my critique of your source, and other than the dictionary, it's your only source for the basis of your opinion on this debate. "I also know in the Civil War the Union loss more life then the CSA."Your citing the American civil war is wholly irrelevant to this debate. Although there were more union deaths than confederate deaths, the objective was still the same, even if it wasn't met. There is no point in citing this interesting fact, just as there was no point in basing your argument against the resolution in the Japanese political/military decision making, when it was an American decision. "My opponent asserts that there was ample opportunity for a peaceful resolution, and that is not the case. The Japanese were given an opportunity after Potsdam to surrender unconditionally, and in particular, have the Emperor removed from his throne, as this was seen as a future militaristic source of direction for Japan. Japan rejected this proposal." - Pro"If this happens there will be no peace. This was the only way(peacefully). Got anything to back that up without fallacies? Please post." - ConThe fact that the Japanese military, who were truly in control at the time, rejected the proposal would indicate that their vision of a future, with a military is a fair assessment. What other reason would they reject the proposal.Again, this is more irrelevance to the resolution, since it was in fact rejected, and from that the American president's perspective he can only make a decision based on the behavior and limited intelligence of the Japanese that he was able to know at the time."As always, bad history ignores the context of the time. By 1945 Europe was destroyed, and the European allies were crippled in their ability to contribute to the Pacific theater. Americans had been returning dead for years at this point, and it is very important to understand that the Americans that were killed were largely draftees; this is no small point in trying to understand the context of the time. It is somewhat of a foreign concept for Americans now to think of being drafted and killed in a far off place. 175,000 American men that were involuntarily conscripted into the armed forces of the US were killed" - Pro Define.Irrelevant - ConThe point of our military being based on mostly draftees, and the casualties of draftees was an attempt to bring some historical context into the discussion, which would help bring understanding and support to the resolution of it being a reasonable decision to drop the bomb. It is difficult for us to put ourselves into that time, where years of military casualties, young men who just got out of high school, and were involuntarily drafted, were sent to die, and this atmosphere is very difficult for an average American to understand. However, the resolution demands some understanding of the American perspective at this time, and this I say is within the clarity of it being a "reasonable" decision to drop the bomb. It is indeed bad history to simply cite factual data, and ignore the contextual information that surrounds that data, and to better understand those facts and decisions made. It is indeed clear that the war was ended quickly after the bomb was dropped and that the objectives of dropping the bomb were met.As far as "Let the Russians do it", you will need to provide a detailed presentation of what that entails, and what was on the table, you have not done so.The resolution holds that it was in fact a reasonable decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.