The use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II was unjustified.

Before I start my contentions, I would like to welcome you into DDO Stepeters, and may the better debater win. (sources will be underlined)Contentions:1. The Atomic bombings were state sanctioned acts of terrorismSince the definition for terrorism is broad, the following definition will be used for this debate. Terrorism; violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). 2. Militarily unnecessaryThe use of the Atom bomb was opposed by high ranking military officers."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. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet."In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." -Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953–1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. 312–313."The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." -Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. 3. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both War Crimes and Immoral Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalled Gen. Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop the nuclear bombs on Japan, said: " 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" "I think it made it very difficult for us to take the position after the war that we wanted to get rid of atomic bombs because it would be immoral to use them against the civilian population. We lost the moral argument with which, right after the war, we might have perhaps gotten rid of the bomb. Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" -Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand (http://members.peak.org......)