Resolved: The Atomic Bombings of Japan were justified.

Some interesting points by Pro, I will now attempt to rebut them. Whilst my opponent's point is correct that all members of the cabinet would have to unanimously agree to surrender; this could be overruled by the Emperor (which was what happened on 10th August [1]). What this means is that the Emperor ultimately decided whether or not to surrender. I would agree that the atomic bombs may have been necessary if the Emperor's mind was changed by them, but in reality he had already decided that he wanted to end the war: On the 22nd of June (before the atomic bomb), Emperor Hirohito told his ministers: (2) "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." As he had already decided to end the war, and had the capability to overrule the cabinet to ensure surrender, it seems likely that Hirohito would have done so irrespective of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They may have hastened his intervention, but I very much doubt that he would not have surrendered soon even if the atomic bombs were not used. Therefore they were not necessary in ensuring Japanese surrender. My opponent goes on to detail the strategic importance of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I appreciate this but do not see that it justifies the use of the atomic bomb. This is because just as much destruction could be wreaked by fire-bombing (as was demonstrated on Tokyo) so the use of an atomic bomb was unnecessary. 'We had no idea if it would work and if we made the Japanese watch then the bomb doesn't work we can see that the Japanese would have had a major confidence boost.' The same would apply if it was dropped on Hiroshima and did not work. Fear of the bomb not working and boosting enemy morale does not justify using the bomb on Hiroshima, if anything it would discourage the use of it. My opponent highlights that the US dropping the bomb on a Japanese military island would have no major effect because of the lack of value that the government placed on their troops. Whilst his reasoning is correct, Pro forgets that one of the primary purposes that an atomic bomb would be used would be to induce fear; due to the bomb being such a dangerous weapon. In this way, its effect in leading to surrender is mainly psychological. The psychological fear that would be caused by the use of the bomb could be produced by a simple demonstration on a sparsely populated part of Japan. In other words, the fact that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima was unnecessary. The same effect could be achieved by it being used on a less populated part of Japan; this would reduce the amount of civilian deaths. Whilst it may be true that the Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death during Operation Downfall, Emperor Hirohito was not willing to allow that to happen (as I have mentioned above). As Hirohito was already planning to surrender, he would have done so before Operation Downfall got underway. This would avoid: 1. The millions of deaths that Operation Downfall would cause. 2. The USA/USSR split that Operation Downfall could have resulted in. 3. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of the atomic bomb was also a principle cause of the Cold War (3), which is rebuts my opponent's indictation that to neglect to use the atomic bomb would have lead to tension between the USA and USSR. 'We can also see that by dropping the bomb we saved more lives then we cost.' This statement would only be true if the bomb was the only way to prevent Operation Downfall, I have argued cogently that it was not the only reason. At best it merely hastened the surrender, it did not cause it. My opponent argues that the dropping of the leaflets served as adequate warning of the atomic bomb. I seriously doubt this, because wartime propaganda was notoriously hyperbolic, it would not be uncommon for enemy propaganda to attempt to frighten Japan into surrender through use of exaggerated claims, so the Japanese would be naturally sceptical. It also seems difficult to portray the sheer scale of the atomic bomb on a small leaflet, and most people reading it would dismiss it as petty scaremongering. In contrast, actually demonstrating the atomic bomb to Japan (but not on a populated city) would realistically and veridically portray the capability of the USAAF bombing repertoire. Pro then goes on to write some quotations from Winston Churchill, Harry S Truman, and an Italian Petty Officer. However, these were all said/written in or around the time of the war so they do not have the benefit of hindsight, or knowledge of the Emperor's desire for surrender, so I do not take them to be valid evidence for the justification of the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The quote by Emperor Hirohito actually solidifies my argument that the Emperor desired surrender; as his opinion was unchanged by the atomic bombings, it suggests that they did not make him decide to surrender. I will now pass the argument over to my opponent. (1)http://books.google.co.uk... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://www.johndclare.net...