Use of Atomic Bombs to End WW2 Was Necessary

"One of the interesting thing that I found out is that my source is exact opposite of the con's source. According to my source, it said that the Japan had no intention of surrender." That's not correct. The source Pro provides in the comments is on my side. I urge voters to read the article for themselves. The article repeats what I said earlier, about the Strategic Bombing Survey's assessment. They also state that both the Naval and State Departments found nuclear action unneeded. To top it off, here's a quote from his source."When the successful test firing of the first atomic bomb took place on 16 July 1945, Truman, negotiating with the Russians at Potsdam, decided to demonstrate America's new power to the Soviets by bombing Japanese cities, even though he knew the Japanese were trying to surrender. To ensure the Japanese would not capitulate before the bombs could be used, he deliberately refused to guarantee the emperor's safety, the only condition which, Alperovitz and others argued, was a sticking-point for the Japanese.In the event, it was not the bombs that produced Japan's surrender - the Japanese military seemed willing to take them in their stride - but the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on 9 August. Truman and his administration, then, had been guilty of an act of callous, wanton brutality, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including innocent women and children, to no purpose other than to intimidate the Soviet Union and establish American hegemony.""The Emperor Hirohito was a determined man. He was unwilling to surrender."If that was the case, why did the Emperor tell his Supreme War Council before the bombs dropped that, "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers...We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."[1]?"He was unwilling to surrender. But he surrendered. Why? The Japan were fighting the men, and suddenly, they were fighting against the force of the Universe. Human vs Universe? Universe wins."Here my opponent suggests that the Japanese were ready to fight it out, but once the bombs were dropped, they decided they couldn't win, so they surrendered. This doesn't make sense. First, understand that as I mentioned in the previous sources, the Japanese position was impossible. If they were to fight, they would not win. Their economy was in shambles, their oil supplies were cut off. As my opponent mentioned, the death rate was 20 Japanese per American. So if the Japanese were to resist, victory would be impossible. Nobody decides, "Yeah, we can't win this, and I'm not interested in fighting to the last man, but I want to get a couple more people killed first. But not all the people, just some. Just cause." No. If you keep fighting in that situation, it means you're all in, you're ready to go to the last man. And if they were ready to go to the last man, why would a nuke stop them? Sure, it was probably a surprise to know that many people could be killed so quickly, but, if the plan is to fight until you're all dead, so what? You're still on your way to the end goal. So the argument that the nuke halted them in their tracks makes no sense. If they were all in, they would've kept fighting regardless. In that situation, they were either all in, or they were looking for a way out. I've shown that the 'all in' theory makes no sense given what happened, which means that they were looking for a way out, rendering the use of the nukes pointless and a war crime.This idea that the 'Universe' intimidated the Japanese out of kamikaze mode is illogical. If they were in kamikaze mode, they wouldn't have stopped. Therefore, we can logically conclude their intention was peace. Thanks for reading.Source: [1] http://www.ihr.org...