The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justifed actions.

Regarding my author: Even if we go with the assumption that he is biased, you have ignored my other sources from last round and therefore they still stand. //We had no idea that an atomic bomb could even cause such cancer. Had we known we wouldn't have sent soldiers in to participate in the clean up proving that the effects of radiation were not due to blatant U.S. disregard for human life, but do to our limited knowledge on the effects of such a weapon.// What??? Saying this has exposed your ignorance of history. We had known about the effects of radiation at least from Marie Currie. She was the founder of radium and died from radiation and it was well know what it would cause. You also have provided no counter evidence and thus this claim stands. On surrender: The postadam declaration was ingnored because the Japanese already knew that we ignored their pleas for surrender which has gone unrefuted. They ignored it because a)they were already willing to surrender but we spat in their faces and b) they were discussing a surrender with Russia already. All of your other "evidence" regarding the Postadam declaration applies to my argument above. The Japanese were mad because we ignored their pleas for surrender and were ready to continue the war. You are ignoring this key part of history. //Your timeline is filled with errors. It's true we were intercepting their messages for quiet some time and we knew they wanted peace. That's why we presented the Potsdam weeks before the bombings.// Well you provided no examples of errors.... And here you concede that we know they wanted peace yet we ignored that seeing as we knew months in advance and we didn't even need to propose the declaration. Cross apply my argument from above. //So all in all, Japan wanted Peace U.S. offers Potsdam declaration, offers peace with reasonable conditions Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration U.S. nukes Japan effectively ending the war.// This makes no sense. If you actually look at history you can see that they ignored it because we ignored their pleas for peace which you concede above. //Conclusion, there were no "pleas to surrender" and therefore the military of Japan was mobilizing for an invasion that was the result of their blatant ignorance to the very leniant demands of the Potsdam Declaration.// Here you have ignored all my evidence and just made a claim backed by nothing but you words. You provide no counter evidence and thus my claim stands. /Anti-Americanism, yes but you are asking for the impossible. They had resentment towards us after we cut off trade with them after we found out they invaded China and massacred millions in mainland Asia. There was going to be resent towards the U.S. no matter what we did. Japans own actions determined who they had resentment towards, not ours. All in all, there is no pleasing a tyrannical, imperialist and unjust nation committing millions of murders. The Germans and the Nazi's had resentment towards the Red Army when they took Berlin.// Here you have effectively conceded my argument about anti-americanism in the first sentence. How did their actions determine who they had resentment for? We nuked them and killed over 200,000 civilians in two days and tainted the land which killed even more. On the quote: You concede here it was written in 1919, decades before the use of nuclear weapons. You have provided no counter arguments accept this quote and thus we mustn't look to it. //The Korea War, Vietnam War, Russo Afghan war, Iran-Iraq war, and the other various civil wars in South America, Africa, Europe and Asia, instigated by the Cold War which were the most costly of our modern day conflicts, were over conflicting political ideologies, not nuclear weapons. The only conflict that has been even suggested of being about nuclear weapons or rather WMD's was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is still debated.// You said the Cold War and nuclear weapons had no effects but here you have ignored my argument regarding the insecurity of other nations and thus it still stands. The fact that Russia and us were at a nuclear stand still did lead to devastating effects which you have ignored. Regarding Wikipedia. That is not a legitimate source and you just said "read this". In my last round I posted stuff from the source and then said read it. If we can copy paste sources then that takes away the point of the debate. But regardless if it would have got off the drawing bored or not, I have proven that a land invasion would not have been needed and you have NOT refuted this at all and I should win on that alone. //More on Postadam\Another reason they didn't like it is because it talks about unconditional surrender as well as utter destruction regarding civilians. They already were willing to have a conditional surrender yet we ignore that and you have done nothing to prove otherwise. Also, please extend my cancer argument. In other words, my opponent's entire argument rests on the fact that a land invasion would be necessary but I have proven otherwise and he has done minimal work on this. He also conceded that we knew they wanted peace thus shattering his argument that they would fight to the last man women and killed and thus it is easy to see that the use of nuclear bombs was not needed nor necessary.