The atomics mission were necessary in ending the war against Japan

I would first like to state that this debate is about whether or not the bombs were necessary to end the war. We are not debating whether it was ethical or justified. So mentioning that the bombs saved lives or prevented millions of casualties is useless. Refutes My opponents states that Eisenhower didn't understand the full context of the moment. May I remind my opponent that Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied forces and would later become president. Logically speaking, Eisenhower said the quote I stated in round 2 which meant he believed that Japan was close to surrender. This is proven by the fact that America knew Japan was trying to get a treaty with Russia. So how did Eisenhower not know the full context of what was happening? He is after all Supreme Commander. My opponent also doesn't give any proof to his words that Eisenhower did indeed recant his statement. My opponent also doesn't try to refute the fact that the other admirals agreed that the bombs had no relevance to Japan's surrender. Here are more quotes pertaining to the fact that the atomic bombs had no relevance to ending the war. [1] My opponent tries to pass off these quotes as subjective and claims that they were all emotionally charged comments and therefore are not true. I could therefore state that my opponent got all his points from an emotionally charged writer who has one sided arguments and are therefore invalid. If all these comments are to be concluded as emotionally charged, then is my opponent indicating that the allied forces were led by emotionally unstable people? My opponents whole argument is still wholly based upon the fact that Japan had a samurai-mentality and would not have surrendered unless the bombs were dropped. If this were true, by statistics, Japan should have surrendered to the firebombing. The firebombing were far more catastrophic ending with far more deaths and more land destroyed. Therefore, saying that Japan surrendered due to the atomic bombs contradicts statistics. I would also like to state that my opponent ignores the fact that I stated that Japan had been trying to broker peace with Russia in relevance to the samurai-mentality. The fact that we know Japan tried to surrender basically negates my opponents point that the atomic bombs were the only thing that would make Japan surrender. My opponent then asks a lot of questions which point towards the atrocities Japan committed during the war. Then my opponent claims that these were actions of a person not looking to surrender, completely ignoring the fact that Japan had indeed tried to surrender. These were the actions of someone who is desperate. And when someone is desperate, that usually means that they are close to surrendering. Which again refutes the fact that Japan would never have surrendered. Rephrasing Points Also an invasion of Japan by America would have ended the war. Unless you want to recant your earlier statement when you stated that Japan was weak and low on resources. If an invasion couldn't have ended the war, then you are basically claiming that all the allied forces were not enough to defeat Japan, which is untrue. Therefore, an invasion would have ended the war. My opponent claims to have negated the fact that an invasion of Japan would have ended the war. Yet has completly ignored the fact that Russia did invade Japan. And it is proven in this article that it was the invasion of Russia which caused Japan to surrender. [2] As my opponent said, Russia attacked Japan which destroyed any plans that Japan had to surrender to Russia. This was because Japan was very keen upon preserving their culture and tradition when they surrendered and they didn't think communist Russia would allow that. This is why they surrendered to the Americans rather than the Russians. On August 6, the first bomb was dropped. On August 7, Japanese leaders urged their ambassador in Russia to press for a peace treaty. On August 8, Japan's ambassador was told that on August 9, Russia would be at war with Japan. On August 9, Russia invaded Japan very early in the morning (1 minute after midnight of August 8). The second bomb was dropped later that day. "By the morning of Aug. 9, the Japanese Supreme War Council was meeting to discuss the terms of surrender. (During the meeting, the second atomic bomb killed tens of thousands at Nagasaki.)" ~ Exerpt of [2] Why would Japan be discussing surrender if they had a samurai-mentality? Why would Japan discuss surrendering to the atomic bomb 3 days after it had been dropped? The evidence clearly points to the Russian invasion as the reason why Japan surrendered. The Japanese leaders knew they had lost. They knew that their last hope for getting what they wanted was by trying to broker peace with Russia. When that failed, they began discussing surrendering to the Americans because they didn't want to surrender to the Russians. I have proven multiple scenarios that prove that the bombs had no relevance to the ending of the war and my opponent has not disproven them. [1] http://www.colorado.edu... [2] http://archive.boston.com...