Lower Tier Finials: Resolved: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings were justified.

Final CounterrebuttalsFirst and foremost, I apologize for the formatting errors in the previous round with my quotes and hope they do not make the debate difficult to read. The quotes looked more presentable in "preview" mode. Secondly and most importantly, the majority of facts cited in this article are reiterations of what I've said in previous, just clarified to rebut my opponent's contentions. Thus, look to above sections for many sources.FC1 - Mindset of Japanese civilians, the justification for targeting them, and the need for the bombHere, I will rebut pieces of my opponent's rebuttal(s) one by one. "My opponent claims that dropping the atom bomb on a Japanese military island would have had the same affect if they were to have dropped the bomb on a civilian target, but this is false when it came to their military as they viewed their own military as expendable were they really valued pilots, but when I gave you the example in an earlier round of Saipan where the Japanese fought to the last man and their women and children on the island committed suicide even though the Marines attempted to save them."Assuming the bomb worked (which I will cover momentarily), there is no feasible reason not to assume the Japanese would have the basic function to deduce that the technology of a bomb of that caliber of destruction being in the hands of the Americans would assure their defeat.My opponent, in his arguments, alleges that the Japanese having a culture of suicide prevents them from seeing any/all forms of reason; even if it may be plainly obvious. Whilst it is indeed true that cultural variations largely associated with pursuing suicide as an honourable death existed in Japan, this does not totally invalidate their desire to live or function with the motivation of human emotion and intellect rather than blind military ideals.If the Japanese, with the proper technology, were able to successfully survey the power of the bomb, why would they need to actually phsyically witness the obliteration of two of their cities if they could fully aniticipate the effects of the bomb and had the foreknowledge to understand the power of the atomic bomb thanks to the practice test?What my opponent is asserting:P1. The Japanese had a culture of pursuing suicide rather than surrenderP2. The Japanese would physically need to experience the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of their citizens, rather than just realize such mass killing was possibleP3.The bombings were necessary to assure surrender, and thus justified There is obviously a large jump between P2 and P3 that remains extremely hard to justify on his part. "One thing that the bombings also helped with was the silencing of the Kyoto incident where the Japanese were attempting to overthrow the empower. If this assassination would have been completed then the Atomic bombings would have continued on Japan and the next scheduled bombing was on the 18th of August and the bombing of Japan into submission would have continued with the same effects.."My opponent has not proven that the living status of the emperor absolutely mandated Japan's surrender, so this argument is irrelevant. As he has even said, negotiations were occurring concerning the surrender of Japan amongst officials and towards the end of the war, the majority of Japanese citizens supported surrender via the election of pro-peace Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki (see above), who helped write the terms of surrender of Emperor Hirohito. Unless Japanese Military officials were unwilling to allow any forms of democracy to continue in Japan as they had culturally for centuries, there would always be a persona present to assure Japanese surrender for the simple reason that the vast majority of Japanese society desired a peaceful resolution to the conflict: as my opponent even states, Japanese Military leaders only forced the nation into surrender via petty things like assassination and tied council votes - dropping atomic bombs on cities is the only way to eliminate three generals in a nation itching for peace?Had the United States decided to pursue routes of demonstrations that could have granted figures like Emperor Hirohito, the Emperor's successor, Prime Minister Suzuki, or any other elected Prime Minister the leverage to effectively force a surrender, the need for the bombings may not have occurred. Also my opponent drops my argument of the US dropping leaflet warnings to the people of Hiroshima that the US is planning on dropping the Atom Bomb. As a matter of fact the US dropped 65 million leaflets warning the Japanese of this attack months before detonation.My opponent renders this argument irrelevant in his own logic. If the reason Japan was not surrendering was attributable to three military generals holding up the system who could allegedly only be convinced by witnessing the physical bombings kill people, how would this have made a difference in Japan's surrender? The facts concerning this domain of the debate are clear: innocent citizens comprised the majority of casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and other than allegations of unproven brainlessness on the part of the Japanese, there is no reason why their deaths could not have been avoided. FC2 - Inhumanity of the bombI will address my opponent's rebuttal from Round 3 here. In my initial contentions, I make various arguments about how the usage of an atomic bomb in warfare is inhumane akin to how the usage of chemical weapons are inhumane. My opponent responds by saying that going to inhumane measures are justifiable if more lives are saved - and is essentially arguing utilitarianism. This is an arguable claim in itself, but luckily in this circumstance, debating upon it's legitimacy as a concept is unnecessary. My opponent's argument consists of the assertion that "1000 Japanese/Americans would die every hour" (an assertion still based upon the reasoning that the Japanese would fight till the last woman and child). If FC1 is valid, however, then this argument is irrelevant as Lannan is assuming that, since I do not advocate the Atomic Bombing of Japan, I must advocate it's invasion instead. This is untrue. Under the plan(s) I proposed - allowing time for Japan to reach it's own decision, more demonstrations closer to Japan, and clarifying the fundamentals of the flawed Potsdam declaration - did not include rates of 1000 wartime deaths per hour, but rather a number closer to zero per hour in a peaceful resolution. The USSR would likely not have invaded Japan if they had already surrendered to the USA or if the USA prioritized diplomatic coordination with the Russians rather than bombing countries to make statements to their enemies - which brings me to my next counterrebuttal.Killing the Japanese and harming their citizens was not the only alternative to the Atomic Bombings. The majority of Japanese citizens died slowly and painfully from already inhumane methods of radiation and exposure - but also without proper medical treatment, relief, or human dignity. [1] Therefore, whilst all alternatives proposed in FC1 are rendered valid, not only was the bombing inhumane at it's core, but utilitarianism cannot be argued to justify war crimes.FC3 - President Truman, Political Factors, and James ByrnesMy opponent, in an effort to convey that US officials at the time were pro-bombing, cited the opinions of President Truman and one James Byrnes. US officials who had consistent and in depth negotiations with the Japanese at the time (like Ralph Bard, advised President Truman with opposing standpoints offered to him by Senator Byrnes. Byrnes, unlike the rest of the military council who (as illustrated above), were largely opposed to the bombing on the grounds that it was unnecessary. What exactly that opposing counsel was that motivated the then President Truman to pursue bombing activities in Japan has come to the in depth analysis of historians. Many propose [2] that President Truman cared more about political grief than saving lives simply due to the fact that he employed Byrnes, a political strategist, as his primary advisor rather than negotiators. [3]In addition, rather than an effort to "save the poor Japanese", many historians now agree that the goal of the bombing was to establish American interest in Japan fast enough as to totally expel all Soviet Interest and intimidate the Soviets at the cost of Japanese lives. [3]Conclusion My opponent, whilst making arguably misguided assertions about the Japanese mindset during WW2, has failed to justify why both the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki particularly were necessary to force a Japanese Surrender and that potential saving of life justifies dishing out relentless pain to innocents. He has practically conceded LC3.For these reasons and all those expressed in my contentions, rebuttals, and counterrebuttals, VOTE CON.[1] - (http://tinyurl.com...) [2] - (http://tinyurl.com...)[3] - (http://tinyurl.com...)