Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing

Con states that the atomic bombs were terrorist attacks without stating why that is a bad thing. Such language choice is an appeal to emotion. Con then does the same by using the phrase "war crimes" without giving any reason for why "war crimes" should not be done. History is written by the winner, and crimes are defined by the winner. Dr. Leo Szilard makes a statement to point out our hypocrisy. Yes, it is true, we are hypocritical. That is not a reason that we should not have taken the actions that we did. Con brings in a quote from Eisenhower. Eisenhower was not in charge of the Pacific theatre and had only limited knowledge of what was going on. His expertise is not relevant in this case. It was a common disconnect between military leaders of the USA and realities of the Japanese mindset. Every military leader recognized that Japan was defeated militarily, based on the info that was present at the time. However, the American idea of "defeated" is not the same as the Japanese idea of "defeated." It was seen in many of the islands that the US took in the pacific that the Japanese would fight until the death, even when they were defeated by western standards. There is no reason to believe that there would be any difference with the Japanese in the homeland. Given their military state at the end of July in 1945, the Japanese still refused the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the first Atomic bomb was dropped, they refused. The Japanese held several conditions that they wanted to be accepted before surrendering. 1) Maintenance of the Imperial Institution. 2) They would be responsible for their own disarming 3) No occupation of Japanese land, Korea, or Taiwan, which they would all keep. 4) Immunity from war crime trials. The Emperor stated on his August 14th recording of surrender, "The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers." Looking to the Kyujo incident, it was a coup attempt by the Imperial Guard of Japan and the Ministry of War for Japan, with the direct intention of taking over the nation for the sole purpose of not surrendering and fighting on. This history proves that what we thought was a "defeated nation" was still willing to fight and die, even when they knew that they would lose. On to reasons why the bomb dropping was the best option. We need to look at what the other options were. Continued fire bombings would only kill more civilians. The Japanese military had seen numerous fire bombings and were not swayed by the loss of life. Therefore, this tactic would only kill more people without ending the war. That makes it an inferior option. A land invasion was estimated to cost over 100,000 American lives, which many estimates being over 200,000. This would most likely have been higher, since the Japanese had accurately predicted the route of the American invasion and laid out counter plans with Operation Ketsugō. This explicitly states that kamikaze pilots were to target transport ships, rather than destroyers. This would greatly increase deaths over the US predictions. It should be noted that 200,000 US deaths is already close to the level of deaths from the atomic bombs, adding Japanese deaths, it would go far beyond that. So a ground invasion would result in more death. The last option is letting the Russians do what Russians do best, walk in and kill with no regard for their own lives. While this would result is no American deaths, it would almost certainly result in more total deaths because of the Russian fighting style and occupation style. If my opponent knows of a better method, I encourage him to speak now. Sources: http://www.history.army.mil... Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, 2001