Should the United States have Dropped the Atomic Bomb

"Now I wonder DO I have to jeep repeating this or are you going to still argue this point as if it was still relevant after I have disproved it twice?" Yes, the Japanese had committed an unthinkable genocide. So Americans, in response, had to demolish two cities. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, in Hiroshima the civilian population outnumbered civilians about 5/6 to 1 (seattletimes.com). The part doesn't represent the whole...If the serial killer (Japanese soldiers) killed a man, do we respond by killing his family (innocent civilians)? "IN FACT the Japanese did get much help after. Dr. Stephen Lloyd says, "The Japanese were astounded, baffled even, by the generous and humane treatment they received at the hands of the US. The US claimed and then waived payments directly from Japan. In fact The US returned to Tokyo's control those parts of the Home Islands it had conquered, chiefly Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Hard to believe, but the US made a substantial payment to the Japanese at the return of Okinawa, part of which endowed an educational trust for Japanese-American scholarly exchange."" You got his off yahoo answers, after a quick checkup on the information you provided...(http://answers.yahoo.com...). I couldn't really find a Dr. Steven Loyd, provide a link? As for my own research, from Time Magazine, (http://www.time.com...), Hiroshima's after war recovery largely depended on it's own occupational governernemnt. Also, according to a Hiroshima youth organization, Peace Seeds, states that Hiroshima was further assisted by INDIVIDUAL donors and sponsors from around the world...not the U.S. Gov't. "In your fifth paragraph you state that Japan didn't have enough time to surrender. FALSE! Only 20 minutes after the bombing, japan realized they had lost all connections with Hiroshima." I concede this point. However, both this point (and the previous one) are moot, as they occurred after the bombing, and really have no bearing on whether or not the U.S. should've dropped the bomb. As I stated, we are only discussing the initial bombing, not the Japanese campaign at large. "For my last point I will address your last paragraph in the third round. You say sarcastically that, "'Im sure the Japanese eat oil and rubber, and use them to rebuild houses and educate their children." And that's right of course. But you know what you can do with valuable recourses? THEY COULD SELL IT. If money can't buy food, and help to rebuild houses I don't know what could." See previous point. It seems the debate has shifted to the events that occurred after the bomb. A brief counter to your list: A. It was in response to numerous Japanese crimes Two wrongs don't make a right...rather, it increased Japanese resentment. B. It saved 100's of thousands of lives Only if an invasion was the only option, as I stated that there were other options. I have completely and thoroughly destroyed this point. A demonstration would've saved all the lives. C. It could have been able to hold the peace after the war was over This is an assertion, not a point. And since the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis came into play at the globe, one could say the atomic bomb introduced a terrible new weapon, more conflict, and danger to the globe. D. Japan wouldn't have responded to anything else that couldn't swiftly cause death without enemy loss. Demonstrated by their "Ketsugo" Proclamation, and their original refusal of the Potsdam Proclamation. A demonstration could've showed them this, easily. The refusal of the Potsdam Proclamation is easy to relate to...they had seen no warning or signal that the U.S. had such a weapon. To sum up my argument, the U.S. shouldn't have dropped the bomb because -It would be an extremely immoral to target an almost completely civilian group, or to kill so many outright when a demonstration could've been a much more elegant solution -It introduced a deadly new weapon to the world, and led to future crisis -Genetic mutations and radiation poisoning riddled certain citizen's lives -Two wrongs don't make a right -A demonstration would've been a much better alternative to all the bloodshed and incineration. May the best debater win.