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

Hello, my name is XStrikeX and I am representing the proposition for this debate, stating that, "The United States should never have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. " For those of you who don't what the bombings were about, here is an introduction. . http://www.youtube.com... The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks at the end of World War II against Japan by the United States at the order of U. S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. The nuclear weapon, "Little Boy," was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare. The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the majority of the dead were civilians. Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II. Now, let's begin the debate. Bombing these cities was not morally correct. The bombs and the following radiation killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, mostly civilians who had little to no effect in the war. Due to the radiation, people developed strange skin malformations and received various kinds of cancer. To quote Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington, DC, "[Truman] knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity. " It was unnecessary to bomb them in order for their surrender and the cities were not even legitimate military targets, which leads into my next two points. Bombing Japan was not necessary for them to surrender. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey found that the bombing was unnecessary. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. " Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U. S. Pacific Fleet. - The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. - The use of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not valid military targets. Supporters of the bombings argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced warships, military equipment, had an assembly area for military troops, and had military factories. What they do not realize is that civilians outnumbered the troops six to one. Many innocent people were killed in the bombings, people who had no significant involvement in the war. The Americans chose the wrong area - the area that had lots of innocent civilians. Either they missed the target, or they were so merciless that they wanted to kill civilians instead of military personnel in order to make the Emperor stunned. Truman knew this as well but, without any sense of humanity, decided to carry out the plan. The bombings started the Cold War. "The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory. Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add. " "Hiroshima Bomb may have Carried Hidden Agenda. " NewScientist. com Dr. James Franck and his fellow scientists who worked on the bomb agreed that it was, ". .. indiscriminate discrimination. .. " Report to the Interim Committee. May 1945 Lastly, the bombings were not consistent with international law. The tragedy could be considered terrorism on innocent citizens and a crime against human ethics. Historical accounts indicate that the decision to use the atomic bombs was made in order to provoke an early surrender of Japan by use of an awe-inspiring power. These observations have caused some commentators to state that the incident was an act of "war terrorism". Michael Walzer wrote, ". .. And, finally, there is war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case. " In 1963 the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war. " In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 and was therefore illegal.