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

I'm sorry I've taken two days to do mine. REBUTTALS: In round one, my opponent forwarded the following arguments: -Bombing these cities was not morally correct. -Bombing Japan was not necessary for them to surrender. -Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not valid military targets. -The bombings started the Cold War. -the bombings were not consistent with international law In round two, he made the following rebuttals: -The general of the United States (Dwight D. Eisenhower) 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? -The realistic alternative I provide is peace. Let me readdress the main argument I've posed: They were faced with two only options, neither of them were Peace: Implement "Operation Downfall", the planned ground assault of Japans island Kyushu OR Drop the nuclear bombs on Japan. Japan were not going to surrender. We know now that the Japanese Imperial Army High Command were planning "Operation Ketsu-Go" [1], an all-out defense of Kyushu. On July 26, 1945, the Allies released the terms of surrender [2] and after a meeting by Japanese military and government, they were rejected with contempt. Only the combined effects of the bombing of Hiroshima, the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan and the bombing of Nagasaki were enough to push the Japanese military into conceding defeat. We cannot argue that it worked. We have the ability to look back in retrospect. Although we know now that around 200,000 Japanese men and women died by 1950 as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima and 100,000 in Nagasaki, I unfortunately must compare this with the alternative I have purposed, that of a ground invasion of Japan. We have a number of estimations for the number of casualties we would have seen if America had had to proceed with Operation Downfall [3], with numbers ranging from one to several million dead. Clearly the ground invasion would have killed and injured at least triple those that were killed by the Atomic bombs. My opponent states: The bombings were not moral correct. What is 'moral' correct in war? The answer is the decision which ends the war fastest and costs fewest lives. The next point I will address is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not valid military targets. A little bit of research would have shown my opponent that this is completely untrue. Hiroshima[4] was a significant industrial and military city. It also had been completely untouched by incendiary bombings, meaning it's destruction by Atomic weapon caused the maximum psychological effect on the otherwise unmovable military leaders. Nagasaki[5] was even more industrially significant, with wide-ranging amounts of industrial construction. The bombing of a second city so soon after the first ensured Japan that America had a large supply of atomic weapons and clearly wasn't afraid to use them. Again, I conclude that only with the actions America took, can we be sure Japan would have surrendered, because we can see that they did indeed surrender. My opponent also proposes that the bombings were not consistent with international law. The evidence he cites is indeed very strong. I ask why no-one has even been held legally responsible, if indeed international law was broken. I will also add that the war ending led to the formation of the United Nations, which has been a strong force in preventing the further use of Nuclear Weapons. I think the fact that America dropped Atomic bombs is not the only factor involved in the Cold War and is irrelevant to this argument regardless. At the time, Russia and America were Allies. While we can certainly look back in retrospect and conclude this, the American Government and Military certainly couldn't look forward and predict the future. Finally, these quotes: "He believed that "giving up" or "coming to peace" were not really options. If they were not really options, why did you list them? ". I was giving them hypothetically. Clearly Japan were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child. "Wouldn't peace have been the most logical and smartest option? " Yes. If it had been an option, which it clearly wasn't. "Of all options, dropping the bomb was the worst due to all the deaths. .. " As I have shown, the only other option America were considering was invading Japan, which would have resulted in 3 to 10 times as many deaths. CONCLUSION: Many people will argue that bombing Japan was wrong and I do no conflicts with this statement. Nothing that happens during war IS right. I am saying that by August of 1945, America didn't have any better option than the one they chose. Remember people, we have the power of retrospect. We can see that it ended the bloodiest conflict in the history of mankind. Of course we can ponder about 'What If', but ultimately I stand by my original contention: America made a decisive, winning military decision in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thank you. RESOURCES: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...