Dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

First of all, you don't want to say "Affirmed" at the end of your argument. Affirmed means you side PRO. You would want to say Negated or something to that effect... 1) On the Surrender of the Japanese. My opponent seems to ignore history. Regardless of the state of the Japanese supply and war capacity (the argument for which my opponent provides no reference), the Japanese were clearly not going to surrender. Mimzee has done nothing to negate the historical evidence that Japan refused to surrender when given the option two weeks before the bombs were dropped, and thus, all my previous points on this issue remain valid. 2) On the American knowledge of the bombs. My opponent asks how the Americans didn't know about the effects of radiation poisoning. Nothing I came across suggests that they did not. However, remember that the Americans would have never tested the bomb on human targets. Why drop an atom bomb on your own nation when you can drop it on another? Also, it is highly likely that the Americans knew perfectly well what the bomb would do because various scientists had been experimenting (and dying - the Curies) with radioactive material for 40 years by the time the bomb was dropped. In any event, the argument about whether or not they knew the specifics of radiation poisoning is somewhat moot, as it does not pass the argument from utilitarianism. ****************************** 1) On Utilitarianism. My opponent makes an egregiously bad argument concerning dropping hundreds of atom bombs on Hiroshima. I'm not even clear as to what his point is here, but his use of counter-factual arguments is meaningless in the long run. The entire notion of dropping lots of atom bombs is a complete red herring. Once again, the death toll of an invasion of the Japanese islands would have resulted in many times the death toll of dropping the bombs, even including the radiation poisoning. Also, the early end to the war prevented the USSR from joining the conflict against Japan, but 2) On a Global Demonstration. My opponent has conceded this argument ("On that topic, you have me.") but asks why not drop the bomb on Germany. Unfortunately, Mimzee seems to be unfamiliar with the history of this topic. By the time the Americans had successfully tested an atom bomb that was ready to drop, the Germans had already surrendered. ************************************* 1) On Targeting a Civilian Habitat. An invasion of Japan was estimated to have civilian casualties of more than a million, twice the number that have died from the bombs. This is indeed a civilian attack. However, the purpose of the attack was to achieve the political end of ending the war with Japan. Japan had already shown a commitment to total war with their kamikaze practices and refusal to accept American surrender terms in face of "total and utter destruction." This was the only plausible way to get them to surrender quickly. 2) On Radiation Sickness. Once again, my opponent makes the link to radiation that I have already explained. Scientists probably DID know that there would be a radiation effect. I would imagine they didn't know it would last this long, however. But even still, the argument for radiation sickness fails the counterargument from utilitarianism. ************************* My opponent has posted nothing that I have not refuted, and has also not refuted my two claims on this subject. AFFIRMED.