Should the United States have Dropped the Atomic Bomb

Thank you for your previous arguments. I will start by rebutting your first paragraph. Yes, I did originally mention morality. If you had quoted from the rest of the sentence you would have shown that it was a side point in my sentence. The full quote was, "Dropping the bomb was a just and moral thing that WE WERE RIGHT to do." And that is though a valid point. Morality IS part of this argument. I am saying that it was still a moral thing to do because of all my points previously listed: i.e. Attack on Pearl Harbor, Philippine death camps, the prostitution of naturals from conquered nations, and one of the worst of all Human experimentation. They tested new biological weapons vivisected captured soldiers, and amputation all without anesthesia too. Even the japanese years later testified that they had committed horrible war crimes that could never have been matched. Now I would like to specifically address your second to last paragraph. You AGAIN say that japan killing 300 first and then us nuking them at Hiroshima was not equal proportionally. And AGAIN in a sense you would be right. If that was the only thing Japan had done. If this what was the dropping of the atomic bomb was solely based on you would be right. But this was not Japan's only crime, but one of many. In fact R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that "between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. Now let's do the math. 19,003,000 to 140,000 hmmm.... Now I wonder DO I have to jeep repeating this or are you going to still argue this point as if it was still relevant after I have disproved it twice? Next I will move to discuss your second paragraph. You say I didn't talk about other possibilities instead of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, and you say it renders my point useless. No, this is just untrue, and it shows your negligence. If you look back to the third paragraph of my third round arguments you will see that I in fact discussed it very specifically. Later in the third paragraph you also say that, "The U.S. did not bother to help the devastated cities. They merely dropped the bomb, swooped in to take a few looks, and swooped out WITHOUT OFFERING AID. Even after they did nothing." Again you make false statements in hopes to better your argument. IN FACT the Japanese did get much help after. Dr. Stephen Lloyd says, "The Japanese were astounded, baffled even, by the generous and humane treatment they received at the hands of the US. The US claimed and then waived payments directly from Japan. In fact The US returned to Tokyo's control those parts of the Home Islands it had conquered, chiefly Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Hard to believe, but the US made a substantial payment to the Japanese at the return of Okinawa, part of which endowed an educational trust for Japanese-American scholarly exchange." In your fifth paragraph you state that Japan didn't have enough time to surrender. FALSE! Only 20 minutes after the bombing, japan realized they had lost all connections with Hiroshima. An hour later roumers were trickling in of a giant explosion at Hiroshima. Of course roumers are nothing without proof. So they sent a plane, and three hours later when the plane go there it was officially confirmed to the Japanese government. I would think hearing the news 4 and a half hours later, and having days to come up with a decision would be enough time for the 6 main heads of the Japanese government and the emperor (the only ones who really could make the decision to surrender) to declare and end to the war. I briefly go back to fix something you said in the last sentence of your third paragraph. You said and I quote, "I merely provided this statement because of your ridiculous claim of invading and taking every single island." I never said this. I said they still would have had to take MANY islands. Of course it would be preposterous to do that, and so I would appreciate if next time you wouldn't paraphrase me to fit into your arguments. This leads me to where you ask me to not use "The Straw Man Fallacy". This seems hypocritical because this is what you have done throughout this entire debate. Cut out, OR EVEN CHANGED, parts of my quotes to support your argument. Next I shall start to wrap up my piece with one of my last arguments. A full-heartidly agree with you that the Atomic Bomb was used, "To intimidate Russia, and to attempt to prevent future conflicts with them." If preventing future war was a side effect of dropping the bomb than it would have just been another added bonus, even though it wasn't the main reason like you try to play it off as. For my last point I will address your last paragraph in the third round. You say sarcastically that, "'Im sure the Japanese eat oil and rubber, and use them to rebuild houses and educate their children." And that's right of course. But you know what you can do with valuable recourses? THEY COULD SELL IT. If money can't buy food, and help to rebuild houses I don't know what could. As this is the last round I would like to conclude with a brief outline of my points. I would appreciate if you wouldn't counter this paragraph in particular because it is just an overview of what I have been talking about the entire time. 1) The bomb was right to drop because... A. It was in response to numerous Japanese crimes B. It saved 100's of thousands of lives C. It could have been able to hold the peace after the war was over D. Japan wouldn't have responded to anything else that couldn't swiftly cause death without enemy loss. Demonstrated by their "Ketsugo" Proclamation, and their original refusal of the Potsdam Proclamation. It has been wonderful debating with you. I look forward to debating you again. Good luck!