The use of Atomic bombs on Japan was justified.

For the sake of organization, here are the contentions I will be arguing: Japan was, in fact, in a position of imminent surrender. Japan had neither the resources nor the means to continue fighting or launch overseas attacks. There were numerous unexplored alternatives to the use of nuclear force. 1: My opponent makes the case that Japan was not prepared or willing to surrender in mid-1945, based on public displays of resilience and statements affirming this by civil servants of the Emperor. This simply cannot serve as an accurate representation of Japan’s actual position during the period. Japanese political leaders and high-ranking government official were essentially duty-bound to never admit any sort of defeat; it was a cultural and legal matter. After every military defeat, Japanese potentates would claim that the loss was intentional, and part of a bigger plan to defeat the United States. (1)Furthermore, the Japanese people believed up until the unconditional surrender that Japan was winning the war, and would never consider giving up. The propaganda from Japanese media and leaders kept them utterly convinced until the end. The leadership in Japan was going to say these things no matter the circumstances, and thus their statements and actions are insufficient evidence to conclude Japan would not have surrendered without the use of nuclear weapons. Instead, the actual evidence must be examined, to determine what was really being thought and discussed among Japan’s decision-makers. In 1946, one years after the end of the war, President Truman, who had ordered the bombings himself, commissioned a study by the Strategic Bombing Survey Group, to determine whether the bombs were necessary. (2) The following conclusion was reached: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. ” (3) In other words, no other outside pressure would have been required to force Japan’s surrender; it was inevitable given their country’s condition. Future president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the most influential general of WW2, said of the bombs, “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them”. (4)It’s interesting to note that other figures from the time who said that the bombs would not be necessary included General McArthur, the Admiral of the US Navy William Leahy, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird, Director of Naval intelligence Ellis Zacharias, and many others. (5) Most of these men were not even consulted about the use of the bomb despite being military experts. In conclusion, the evidence clearly demonstrates that despite their public impression, Japan was in every sense prepared to surrender, and the use of the most destructive weapons in human history, or the conducting of a massive, costly invasion, would simply not be necessary. 2: Even if the high-ups in Japan had wanted to continue the fight indefinitely, the country lacked the funding or the ability to defend itself, let alone launch an attack. My opponent claims Japan was going to launch a massive biological attack on America’s West Coast, but surrendered before the plan could be put into action. Throughout the course of the war, the Japanese devised dozens of schemes to cause destruction and casualties in the United States, most of which were never attempted, and those that were carried out failed. (6) This one seems especially ridiculous, and operated on the assumption that Japan could spare a squadron of bombers and fighters, which could make it past US naval and air defenses, would survive all the way to San Francisco, before dropping a payload of diseased animals, which would successfully spread the plague and cause untold deaths. My opponent must realize this is incredibly weak. Japan was materially defeated. Virtually uncontested conventional air raids were constantly weakening Japan’s military assets, and even massive bombing raids on the capital of the country, Tokyo, enjoyed minimal casualties. (7) Blockades of every major port in Japan went unchallenged and prevented resources from entering, and military assets or potential threats from leaving. (8) Secretary Stimson said, “Japan had no allies; its navy was almost destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks. ” (9) Japan had reasonable manpower, but couldn’t equip their volunteers with the means to prevent bombings or artillery strikes, or provide enough food for a prolonged campaign. Being constantly barraged and weakened, Japan really could not keep fighting, even if they desired to. 3: Let’s assume for argument’s sake that Japan had no plans to surrender, and that it had plenty of resources left for continued combat, and that it posed a real threat to the American mainland. Even if we can assume all that, the deployment of atomic bombs on Japanese population centers would not immediately be justified, as there were many alternatives apparently never considered that would’ve rendered both the nuclear weapons and a ground invasion unneeded. Here are a few: A: A Warning Shot/Demonstration Although the US had promised “annihilation” to Japan, no mention of the bomb was ever made before its use. Had a warhead been dropped on a mostly uninhabited part of Japan, or over the ocean off the coast, the Japanese people as well as the authorities would have seen the power of the weapon, and would realize it could be used on Tokyo, or to target the Emperor. This would have likely been almost equally effective as simply dropping the bombs on civilian centers. B: Let the Russians Handle It Russia had every intention of entering the war against Japan, and the Japanese authorities were under no delusion that they had a chance against the Red Army. The Foreign Minister of Japan wrote to an ambassador, “It is clear as day that the Imperial Army in Manchukuo would be completely unable to oppose the Red Army which has just won a great victory and is superior to us on all points. ” (10) In fact, the threat of Russian invasion is considered a factor almost equal to the atomic bombs in prompting surrender. The bombs were used a mere one week before the Russian invasion was scheduled, making the decision to use them even more bizarre. C: Bomb Japan Into Submission As the US was meeting little to no aerial resistance by the end of the war, and hitting Japanese military and civilian targets at will. The study commissioned by Truman said of the campaign, “Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. ” (11) I’ll let that quote speak for itself. Any of these three options, as well as others, would be very likely to force surrender, and in combination would almost guarantee it, casting even further doubt on the decision made to use the bombs. Conclusion: I’m short on character, and will wrap this up quickly. The evidence is clear that Japan was out of resources, out of funds, and quickly running out of the will to fight. Brave words mean nothing when one is quite literally out of options. Japan would not and could not have continued the fight. And even if by some miracle they could, there were plenty of less costly and perfectly feasible possibilities of ending the war. The atomic bombings were not justified. I thank my opponent again for initiating this debate, and look forward to his response. Due to character limits, sources are the in comments.