The use of Atomic bombs on Japan was justified.

I will be responding to my opponent in the order of the three original contentions. 1: Japan Was Preparing to Surrender While it can be up to the judgment of the reader, I found very little to respond to on this point. My opponent provides no evidence or counter-evidence to demonstrate that Japan was not preparing to surrender, but simply reaffirmed that indeed they were not based the people’s suicidal devotion to their emperor. My opponent does address my single strongest piece of evidence, the post-war report that found the atomic bombings were unnecessary, but restates his argument, and does not in any way question the legitimacy of the study or its results. In fact, not only was Japan almost certain to surrender without the use nuclear strikes, they were already in the process of doing so. (1) “While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders (the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, also known as the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the still-neutral Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms more favorable to the Japanese. ” (2) Japan were already engaged in peace-talks when the United States used the super-weapons. While obviously Truman and the other allies didn’t know about the secret talks, this fact once again demonstrates that Japan’s elite knew they were beat, and were more than willing to surrender. It also demonstrates that the bellicose rhetoric used by Japanese officials did not have any bearing on actual policy discussions. Before I move on, I should address one point made by my opponent. He says, “Even after the devastation as a result of the bomb the Japanese government refused to surrender. ” This argument is reinforced by the fact that much of the war council still opposed surrender. However, the point is ultimately void. Once again, it was the duty of Japanese leaders to be resilient, and I have firmly shown the disparity between what these leaders said and what they thought. More notably, though, is the fact that the opinion of the war council didn’t really matter in the end. “Emperor Hirohito intervened and ordered the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war. ” (3) The Emperor had the ultimate say, and he did not hesitate in commanding Japan to surrender. So while much of the Japanese government may have refused to surrender, the portion of the ruling body that mattered were already preparing to surrender before the bombs were dropped. 2: In response to my claim that Japan lacked the capability to defend themselves or launch any particularly dangerous counter-attacks. My opponent brings up Kamikaze attacks and the Japanese death squad, Unit 731, as well as quoting a long passage about Japan’s far-fetched plan to launch a biological assault on the United States. The latter is the only plan for which there is any indication Japan would have attempted as a last-ditch effort. However, as stated in round 2, I fail to see how the plan would have any hope of succeeding, even if it was carried out, which I doubt it would have been, since Japan devised dozens of ridiculous schemes to attack the US mainland, none of which had any notable effect. Also, is it really to be believed that a nation in surrender-talks with the Soviets and facing an imminent invasion would attempt to commit an act of mass biological murder, thus sealing their fate and ending their opportunity for favorable terms? My opponent states that Japan was unpredictable (a “God works in mysterious ways” cop-out argument), and says “They continued with their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor knowing that this attack will lead to the US intervening in WW2. ” I’m sorry, but this demonstrates a lack of research and understanding about the time period. It is inherently false. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in a wrong-headed attempt to prevent the US from joining the war, not to encourage it. (4) Japan saw the US as weak and believed one decisive strike would keep the US uninvolved. Japan’s attack on the naval base was in no way designed to pull the US into the conflict. 3: My opponent does not address my alternatives. Perhaps if he had devoted fewer characters to quoting almost half of my second round arguments, he would have the characters to spare. The points I made on contention three merely add to the case that the use of the atomic bombs was unnecessary. Japan chose to enter peace-talks with the Soviets because they feared them more than the “total annihilation” promised by the United States. At this point, Japan did not even know the atomic bombs existed and yet was in early preparation for surrender. The bombs prompted immediate action, but did nothing to cause a surrender that would have happened regardless. In conclusion, the strongest evidence I cited in my second round argument still stands, as well as further proof that Japan was going to surrender without the use of nuclear force. To overturn my arguments, my opponent must demonstrate that Japan would not have surrendered without the atomic bombs, despite the fact that Japan was already in talks to surrender, despite the private communications of top Japanese officials revealing that they were ready to give up, and despite a great deal of compiled American evidence that Japan would have surrendered without the nuclear attacks. The bombs did nothing to help end the war, but did destroy two major cities, cause a great number of birth defects and radiation illnesses, and add hundreds-of-thousands more to the body count. (5) I once again thank my opponent for initiating this debate, and look forward to his final arguments. (1) . http://www.nuclearfiles.org... (2)(3) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (4) . http://www.pearlharbor.org... (5) . http://atomicbombmuseum.org...