The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

http://www.debate.org... Let us continue the debate sorry about the last round I was planning to reply but a couple of issues came up and I hope people don't vote with there opinion but with the arguments a bit more this time but hell, I know my opinion is a little tough to argue. Anyway, onto the debate. "delivering vengeance to those killed at Pearl Harbor", You said you weren't in favor of revenge? and then you continue to say "while it may have been highly unfortunate and immensely regrettable that the Japanese civilians had to die to achieve this lasting peace, remember that it is also regrettable that those same Japanese were complacent when Pearl Harbor was being bombed and U.S. soldiers were being paraded to their deaths during the Bataan Death March." It sounds like justification by they didn't do anything about it so let's kill them.I think that's revenge? Do you think what happened at Pearl Harbor was as morally wrong as the A-Bomb, what about the death of the PoW at the Bataan Death march are they truly as bad or equivelant to the use of Atomic weapons on civilians with no prior warning? Also just to let you know the Atomic Bomb killed PoW's just like at the Bataan march....and if you were to justify the use of Atomic weapons against Japanese then I'd use the rape of Nankin because the acts of aggression by soldiers against soldiers is no justification for the murder of their wives and children. There is no proof that the same leaders would have remained in place. I believe a large portion of those extremist would resign in shame. (this is just from my understanding of their mentality) "The point of the preceding paragraph is to prove that the Japanese were not willing to compromise until we laid it out for them: Surrender and get rid of the old order that caused this war, or we will annhilate you. I think that's better than allowing the Japanese military junta to remain in power, causing a possible arms race between the Japanese and the United States." The SURRENDER (giving up arms meaning there is no possible arms race) with the emperor remaining would not lead to any arms race because the "military junta" would not be allowed to remain by the U.S. How do we know what exact conditions the Japanese would and wouldn't allow if there were no negotiations. There is no proof of any exact conditions the Japanese government would have given in to and they would have surrendered according to the U.S. War Department by the end of the year in all probability. "In short: Peace without utter defeat of the Japanese would have led to further conflicts in the Pacific. Just look at what happened when in World War I, Germany was not utterly defeated...they tried rolling the dice again!" There is no proof that this would have happened, the Japanese and Germans are very different and political scenes were also different. "Another huge point is that had we not demonstrated to the Soviets that we had nuclear weapons, they would probably have invaded Western Europe." A soviet spy had already infiltrated the Manhattan project so there was no need for a demonstration when the soviets already knew about it. The U.S. War Department's survey makes no mention of what the conditions of surrender would have been for Japan to surrender by the end of the year and if what you said about the military juntas remaining in power was true then I am sure they would have used it to defend the government's actions.