Hiroshima and nagasaki bombing

First, it was nice to read my opponent's assessment of the inner workings of the Japanese military and political structure during WWII, and his rough time line within their context. However, I'd like to point out that that angle of argument is wholly irrelevant to the resolution: " It was a reasonable decision to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at that time in world history. " The decision to drop the bomb was made by the American president Harry Truman, and what was happening in the Japanese government had only a bearing on that decision only in so far as the limited intelligence on what happened in the Japanese government and military strategists, that reached the president. I submit that that the vast bulk of Japanese military planning and internal interactions were not known to the president, and were of secondary consideration to the decision to drop the bomb. The primary consideration was, 'would it effectively end the war', and 'would it end the Americans dying in the war against Japan'. I'd also like to call into question the source that my opponent used to base his argument. Doug Long who apparently wrote a non published short summary of events, is an obscure Associate Professor at an unremarkable college. Citing him as a reference is pretty weak as a source, and from looking at his assessment of the war, and the dropping of the bomb, it is understandable why he is an Associate Professor. I'd also like to call out the judgment called "revenge" by this obscure Associate Professor. We are talking about a world war where 60 million people were killed, that would be 2.5% of the world's population [1]. I'm not exactly sure how the word revenge even works in the midst of a war that was so catastrophic. It is bad history when a contemporary judgment is made on a time without fully understanding its context. Revenge is almost by definition a component of war, particularly a war that was not initiated by those who are seeking vengeance. If my opponent believes that we should have turned the other cheek after Pearl Harbor, then that would be fodder for another debate, but in the minds of most, and in the context of international discourse, retaliation is both warranted and justified. Revenge can also serve a purpose in dissuading future aggression. Furthermore, I would assert that the objective of war is to win with the least number of casualties, damage and resources on your side. My opponent asserts that there was ample opportunity for a peaceful resolution, and that is not the case. The Japanese were given an opportunity after Potsdam to surrender unconditionally, and in particular, have the Emperor removed from his throne, as this was seen as a future militaristic source of direction for Japan. Japan rejected this proposal [2]. As always, bad history ignores the context of the time. By 1945 Europe was destroyed, and the European allies were crippled in their ability to contribute to the Pacific theater. Americans had been returning dead for years at this point, and it is very important to understand that the Americans that were killed were largely draftees; this is no small point in trying to understand the context of the time. It is somewhat of a foreign concept for Americans now to think of being drafted and killed in a far off place. 175,000 American men that were involuntarily conscripted into the armed forces of the US were killed [3]. Although it is impossible to quantify the number of American lives saved by dropping the atomic bomb, it is clear that it ended the war faster and unconditionally more than any other method that could have been employed. It is also worth saying that that this experience that the Japanese endured was the prime catalyst to the destruction of their militaristic society, and paved a way for a peace movement that would last indefinitely. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://library.thinkquest.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...