The United States of America should never have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I'm absolutely positive that this will be a fun and engaged debate. I apologize for not posting my sources last round. These are the sources I will be using for this round and the ones I used for the last one. Sources 1. . http://www.newscientist.com... 2. . http://www.commondreams.org... 3. . http://www.atomicarchive.com... 4. "Shattering the Myth of the Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have to happen THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB," By Guy Alperovitz 5. . http://www.doug-long.com... 6. . http://www.greenwych.ca... Let's start debating. Refutations My opponent has stated that Japan would never have surrendered if the bombs were dropped. He stated that my surveys were false, irrelevant, and taken after the bombings. General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir, 'The White House Years,' BEFORE the bombing, "I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. " The general of the United States who knew all about the war and about Japan's situation and even he proves that the Japanese had no intent of fighting anymore. I must also stress the fact that even if the bombing was the cause of Japan's surrender, the bombs needed to be released in a much more logical place. The bomb killed many, numerous innocent civilians. If the bombs truly were necessary, wouldn't it be much more ideal to use it in an area where there were few civilians and more military-related soldiers, manufacturers, and buildings? My opponent has also found the need to list 5 options for the United States to do against Japan. The first listed option was to use nuclear bombs. Second: use incendiary bombs Third: invade Japan's mainland Fourth: give up And Fifth: come to an agreement of peace "We can see that in fact the best military move was indeed to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. " He never proved why besides this assertion and if his previous argument was meant to be the reasoning, I have already refuted it. He believed that "giving up" or "coming to peace" were not really options. If they were not really options, why did you list them? And how is peace not an option? Wouldn't peace have been the most logical and smartest option? All the deaths and casualties would be eliminated. The realistic alternative I provide is peace. Of all options, dropping the bomb was the worst due to all the deaths. This bomb kick-started the Cold War, as I previously showed, and did not that result in many deaths? I apologize for asking so many questions, but I urge the audience to examine this closely, for this is extremely important. My arguments still stand for my opponent has strangely decided not to refute them and I urge him to do so, so that this debate can become more exciting. Think of this. Who was the first nation to use the nuclear weapon? Who was the only nation to use the nuclear weapon so far in history? Who chose to kill thousands of innocent civilians? All of this was caused by us, the United States. I look forward to the response.