The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. They were both military targets.

My opponent states numerous times that Japan had not surrendered, Japan was not defeated. My opponent seems to think that defeat and surrender are two of the same things which is a very large misunderstanding that many people make. Surrender by definition is "Stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority:" [1] The definition of defeat is "Win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat:" [2] Those are not the same thing, am I right? To defeat someone is to beat them in a battle in our context. To surrender to someone is to submit to their authority. Those are not the same thing. Japan was already militarily defeated on the June of 1945. [4] Japan surrendered on September 2, 1945. As for the Potsdam conference. Stalin passed on a message that they had received from the Peace feelers of Japan. "It was the personal desire of the Emperor, to avoid further bloodshed... Our answer of course is negative." Stalin said. [3] To that, President Truman practically ignored it and went on with the conference. The only condition Japan was asking for was if the royal family could be safe. President Truman ignored that and insisted on unconditional surrender. Japan had already tried to surrender and America refused. The way Japan tried to surrender were explicit and obvious. There was no justification in dropping the two bombs when Japan was already defeated and ready to surrender. Then my opponent says that the LeMay leaflets justified the use of the two bombs. Let me ask you something, if a terrorist warned New York City that it was going to be nuked, would the terrorist be let off the hook? If I warned you that I was going to punch you, would I be let off the hook? No. Just because you give a warning doesn't justify the act. If America had lost the war, those who dropped the two atomic bombs and those who planned the bombings of Tokyo and other cities would have been tried for war crimes. Just because you give a warning does not mean you're off the hook. The warnings did not justify the act. Then my opponent dismisses the fact that America could have starved Japan into surrender based upon opinion. Opinion is subjective. America could have starved Japan into surrender. [4] And let me add, America couldn't have cared less if the Japanese civilians died of starvation. The hatred America had of Japan at that time was immense. To the point where they were so paranoid that they sent all American-Japanese people to camps in America, the equivalent of concentration camps. All because they were Japanese. Then my opponent states that the middle of the city was targeted because bombs could not aim where they were dropped. That makes no sense at all. Why not aim for the military base then? Those two bombs were aiming for maximum damage of all Japanese civilians. Just because the bombs themselves couldn't aim doesn't justify the attack. That's like stating that all because I threw a grenade into the restaurant and it couldn't aim itself, suddenly I'm let off the hook for my action. Now I will clear up the myth that many people mistakenly believe. Japanese people were not blood thirsty savages. I have no idea why people believe this but they do. There were some Japanese extremists out there but lets put this into perspective. There are a lot of christians out in the world and then there are some extremist christians. Just because the extremist christians did something bad does not mean that all christians do that. Same with muslims, and any other religious, or ethnic group. Yet most of the world likes believes that certain ethnic or religious groups are all like the extremists. Let me tell you one thing, Japanese soldiers were afraid of dying. Does that surprise you? American soldiers were afraid of dying, did that surprise you? Probably not, so I don't get how it surprises people that Japanese soldiers were afraid of dying. Yes, Japanese people were loyal to their country, just like an American would be loyal to America. Why does it surprise people that Japanese people would be sharpening bamboo sticks into spears? Wouldn't you do the same if you knew your country had already lost the war and that your enemy was preparing to slaughter all of you? The Japanese were very aware of the fact that their country had already lost the war. They were also very aware of the fact that America was preparing a mass invasion of Japan that would probably slaughter most of the Japanese civilians. So why do people think its odd that Japanese civilians would want to defend themselves against this threat? Wouldn't you do the same? The myth that Japanese people are blood thirsty savages is totally fake and based off of a couple of extremists. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.fpp.co.uk... [4] http://www.ihr.org...