The use of Atomic bombs on Japan was justified.

Thank you for the quick response. Anyway onto the rebuttals! Note my initial argument was copy pasted from a debate with someone else as they did not respond so sorry if they don't directly relate to our debate. Please provide sources in your debates. "A document sent to the American generals stated the Japanese terms of surrender. The terms included:" This sounds a bit sketchy, the surrender terms sounds as if it's coming from an American perspective not Japanese. Not sure what you mean by that but let's look at it from the Japanese POV. The Japanese military and government is responsible for the murder of millions of Asians. Japanese aggression caused the deaths of 3-4 Chinese military deaths and 20 million in total counting civilians. Philippines 57,000 military deaths, 500,000-1,000,000 total deaths counting civilians. Not to mention numerous other nations that experienced the atrocities Japanese military has created. Look at yourself from the Japanese government's perspective if you were responsible for so many deaths as a result of your own aggression wouldn't you accept an unconditional surrender? The Japanese government refused to accept their responsibilities for war crimes committed by their military (military controlled their government as well during that time.) The United States wanted unconditional surrender to create a lasting peace. They wanted to prevent WWIII from occurring again, which would've caused even more suffering in the near future. With an unconditional surrender the US was able to invest into Japanese infrastructure, reform their government into a democratic country and bring Japan to the world power it is today. This is why only an unconditional surrender is acceptable. "In addition, the U.S. generals did not give enough time for word to filter out that they were going to atomic bomb Nagasaki. Had they given out the warning sooner, innocent lives would not have been lost. Also, if the Japanese were aware of the disastrous effects of the bomb they would have surrendered unconditionally in order to protect the lives of their people." Where did you get this from? The US dropped leaflets are all potential targets warning civilians to flee those cities. "After the Hiroshima attack, a faction of Japan"s supreme war council favored acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, but the majority resisted unconditional surrender." There was plenty of time it was the Japanese government that refused to unconditional surrender even after Hiroshima. The Atomic bombs were not the sole factor to defeat Japan no one believes that however the bombs did force Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The longer the war delays the more Japanese people will starve, including POWs who would've been the first to go. There was a naval blockade causing supplies to be scarce in Japan, even on the verge of defeat Japan still refused to surrender. Japan even formed militias to defend the homeland preparing for the potential invasion. "An additional reason for the atomic bombing was to prove to the rest of the world, especially the Soviet Union, that America had a strong military. However, it was not worth killing an unbelievable amount of innocent lives in order to prove how powerful they are." The following is a popular conspiracy theory with no valid proof only theories to back it up. Another reason for the bombing was to justify the nearly two billion dollars spent on the atomic bombs manufacture. General Eisenhower, along with many other officials as well as civilians knew about the production of the atomic bomb. If the government were to not use the bomb Americans would lose faith in their government and assume that they do not know how to spend their money wisely. Therefore the use of the bomb was apparently "necessary". Actually the first Atomic bomb aka the Manhattan Project was tested in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The US knew the capabilities of the Atomic bomb already and did not need to test it on japan. As for spending, 2 billion was nothing compared to the total spending of World War II by the US. The US had spent $296 billion in total for the war, the 2 billion invested into the Atomic bomb was a success as they know the potential of the Atomic bomb. If they wanted the US could've invited Japanese and Soviet leaders to an Atomic bomb testing but would that have worked? It took two Atomic bombs to forced Japan to surrender and we only had those two. As for the morality of the bomb I refer to my above statement of deaths caused by Japanese aggression. Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night was a plan developed by Japanese unit 731 (I'm sure you know about the atrocities committed by that unit) "Rats infested with plague-carrying fleas were also released by the Japanese. Nobuo Kamaden, a former Unit 731 member, spoke of releasing 500-gram rats with 3,000 plague-carrying fleas into local populations. Chinese prisoners called 'logs' were infected with the plague. Autopsies were performed on these prisoners without the benefit of anesthesia and before they had fully died to harvest fresh tissue samples and infected organs. It was reported that Ishii had devised Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night, a plan to send kamikaze bombers loaded with plague to San Diego, California. The operation was scheduled for 22 September 1945. The Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945." This operation planned from Japan was halted by Japanese surrender before it could be carried out. If the war continued the operation COULD (as you know it didn't happen as the war ended before then but it's clear Japan had intentions of carrying out the operation) have been initiated causing unimaginable causalities on American civilians. Source: http://www.nationalww2museum.org... http://www.pbs.org... http://ww2days.com... http://www.history.com...