Hiroshima and nagasaki bombing

"You never actually did come back to this. Considering that it was my foundation in refuting your initial assertion, I will consider this a concession. Your primary argument was based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political decision makers, and I will reassert that such considerations are irrelevant since the decision to drop the bomb, which is what the resolution is based, was made by the American president, and the American president was not privy to the dynamics that went on in the Japanese war machine.-----I will later in the debate." -"-------Which is important, being if we wanted the war to end we could have did it in a peaceful manner that the Japanese do not lose face."I'm not sure how this addresses my objection to the primary thrust of your argument being based on the inner workings of the Japanese military and political machine. It's a nonsequitor to my contention that your argument is irrelevant to the resolution. "I am critiquing your source as being very weak, and of little authority, and opinion based. For an individual of no great credentials on the subject, to toss out the allegation that this action was done out of "revenge" is in fact baseless for this debate. Your rebuttal offered nothing to change my critique of your source, and other than the dictionary, it's your only source for the basis of your opinion on this debate. ""-----This is just a vague red herring. If you seem to SOMETHING, bring it to the table. Even so, you, yourself have no facts to back you up."It is not, I call into question your priliminary and primary source of information in your initial argument. I maintain that it is a weak source of no authoritative value. You fail to defend the source which further nullifies its value."Your citing the American civil war is wholly irrelevant to this debate. Although there were more union deaths than confederate deaths, the objective was still the same, even if it wasn't met. There is no point in citing this interesting fact, just as there was no point in basing your argument against the resolution in the Japanese political/military decision making, when it was an American decision." "------Your war to war was wrong; I called you out on that.What? How do you win a war, when you are not finishing the objective therefore that part is False and NULL. "Um, you win a war when your enemy surrenders. The objective remains to minimize the loss of life and resource in the process. "No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country". -- George S. Patton MacArthur never said anything about not dropping the bombs, and Eisenhower never voiced this oppinion to the President: Professor of history Robert James Maddox wrote that "Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.' Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?' The best that can be said about Eisenhower's memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time. Notes made by one of Stimson's aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower's part." [1]"2. The act was unethical and illegal, therefore US did have a choice, as anybody has a choice to commit crime or not."That's a fairly subjective judgment void of any historical context. War isn't a pretty chess game, it's a bloody awful experience that any country should work to avoid. People die in war, civilians die in war, and in this war the civilian casualties were horrific. It is important to keep in mind that the firebombing of Tokyo resulted in over 100,000 deaths, and still the Japanese military wasn't broken. [2] 3. Furthermore using atomic weapons was military unnecessary.In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 380,000 dead [3]It is true that a conventional end of the war could have been considered, but why? Since it is estimated that there was a net benefit to both sides by dropping the bomb, thus ending the war there is great reason for ending it this quickly in this manner.Since you are fond of quotes: There were those who considered that the atomic bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas… I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt a position that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives… You continue to cite a quote by Eisenhower, it's too bad that he never shared those views with the president who was making the decision, and that there is great question about the context of that quote.Again your quotes are not legit, nor are your sources. You are cutting and pasting from Doug Long who I have already called into question as a dubious source.It was a reasonable decision to drop the bomb on those cities for the purpose of stopping the war as quickly as it did. The end result of the decision speaks for itself. The country of Japan quickly and completely surrendered after the bomb was dropped, saving a net number of lives already cited. It also caused the country of Japan to adopt a culture of peace, which was a massive change from their centuries old culture of militarism.As for the Russians. That would be a silly option for the Americans to take, and the result would simply be more deaths had the bomb not been dropped. There is little evidence to support that the military wing of the Japanese would bend. "the dominant militarists insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled." [5]To assert that it was an unreasonable decision for the Americans to drop the bomb, is to not grasp the context of history in 1945. The resolution is maintained that it was indeed a reasonable decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.1. Robert, James Maddox (May–June 1995). "The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb". American Heritage. http://www.americanheritage.com....2. Hanson, Victor Davis (2005-08-05). "60 Years Later: Considering Hiroshima". National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com....3. Frank, Downfall, p. 135–7.4. Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 19455. Frank, Richard B. (2005-08-08). "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb". The Weekly Standard