Hiroshima and nagasaki bombing

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. The Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quote. Well, that was public statement quoted in The New York Times (6 October 1945) and in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1996) by Gar Alperovitz.As you can see, I have a WORKING source. Your Maddox website "does not exist".I cant see it. Is it me?Here is the reference in Wiki, my original reference was from a book:http://en.wikipedia.org... I further maintain that Doug Long possesses no credentials to be used as an authoritative source, but only that of another opinion. I will be rebutting your last round within the parameters of my conclusion.1. I assert that your sources are dubious at best, revisionist and fraudulent at worst.You first use Doug Long as a source, who is only an opinion based associate professor that uses modern subjective moralistic judgments and assessments by saying that it was an act of “revenge”. Although Mr. Long is entitled to his opinion, it is nothing more than that, and it is bad history to cast modern judgments upon a time without any reference to context. It clouds the understanding of why things happen, and sets up a platform for revisionist history.You further site sources such as UtiopianStates.org, and Opednews.com. Both are self admitted progressive blogs that have no interest or specialty in understanding true history, but rather follow an agenda, and are part of an effort to misunderstand, and misrepresent history.Again, Mr. Maddox is cited by the History Channel to address this revisionist history on this particular subject:http://hnn.us...This article also addresses the actual hoax that has been perpetrated on your point of the Japanese suing for peace. This never happened. It also addresses the point of the Soviet Union as a solution, which is the silliest of all points.I will admit that there are reams of revisionist history on this subject and other subject emanating from liberal academia. Further confirmation of this revisionist history comes from the master of fraudulent and revisionist history Howard Zinn, who should be held in universal contempt for what he has intentionally done with history. Here is an example of this man’s take on Hiroshima: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com...So, I not only call your sources and quotes into question, but outright call them fraudulent and worthless.2. Much of your argument is based on the timeline of events which occurred within the Japanese military and political structure. Since the resolution specifically concerns itself with the decision to drop the bomb, and that decision was made by the American President, such information, which was well guarded from leaving the Japanese camp, was not made available to the President, and is thus irrelevant to the decision to drop the bomb and the resolution of this debate.3. The decision to drop the bomb was as much of a political decision as it was a military decision, and such considerations would be made solely by the president. As previously cited, the president’s joint chiefs and military advisors never voiced objection, and given the historical context of 1945, six years of world war, and four years of American active involvement in the war; a war where there is an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 civilian casualties each month. These are facts that escape our true ability to identify with, and appreciate. Your implied accusation is that President Truman was acting out of “revenge” or something even worse.4. Your contention that it was immoral and illegal has no support other than personal opinion. It escapes me that the 100,000 killed in the fire bombings of Tokyo (previously sourced) is somehow moral and legal, but the dropping of an atomic bomb is not. How about the bombing of Dresden, where it is estimated that more people were killed in that bombing than in Hiroshima? Is that somehow moral and legal, but Hiroshima no? [1] 5. On other options. There were a lot of considerations in dropping the bomb on these particular targets. “At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Even some military camps were located nearby, such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defence of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications centre, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without POW-camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority. “ [2]President Truman made his objective clear ‘in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.’ [3] The intent was to inflict fear, not toward the military who would not be deterred by the devastation, but to the political machine, and the people of Japan. This objective was achieved.6. The net result was the objective that had been laid out was achieved. Leaflets were dropped and Japanese radio were warned of the danger and advised evacuation, this was 2 days before the bomb was dropped. ‘The instrument of surrender’, or the terms of surrender were: “We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender” were signed September 2, 1945. Most estimations are that the war would continue for 6 more months by most other options proposed, and perhaps much longer for the Japanese troops spread on the Pacific islands. Another net result was a drastic and dramatic change in the Japanese culture, where they went from a highly militaristic and aggressive society, to a culture that has embraced peace, and productive interactions with other countries. It is within the very constitution of Japan that they mandate peace “Article 9. Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes". To this end the article provides that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.” Japan has followed that course of peace as a direct result of the horrific experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.I therefore affirm that it was completely a reasonable decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Vote Pro. Also thank you to my opponent for keeping semantics at a minimum.1. http://news.bbc.co.uk...2. http://www.century-of-flight.net...3. IBID4. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...