Lower Tier Finials: Resolved: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings were justified.

LC1: It saved LivesRebuttals:R1A) Simply dropping the bomb(s) on a different target could have saved more livesFor my opponent's contentions here to be considered ultimately valid, he would have to justify that the Japanese people were in some sort of suicidal trance that could be only be uninvoked by the direct bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not realistic or particularly feasible.Whilst it is true that Japan has an immense history of pride and a culture more arguably associated with suicide and warring commitment, it cannot and has not been upheld by my opponent that in order for the Japanese to surrender, they needed to physically see the lives of hundreds of their citizens be terminated. There is no evidence to show that the Japanese were beyond basic reason. If they were capable of so effectively and intellectually organizing against an American Insurgency, what reasoning prevents them making the conncection of their impending defeat under the same logic if the atomic bomb were to be demonstrated?Dropping the bomb on a small military island or in semi-desolate Japanese territory could accomplish the task that my opponent alleges to necessitate the surrender of the Japanese. The obvious immediate rebuttal to this claim is that a demonstration would have no effect on the Japanese as they did not surrender after Hiroshima, but this fails to take a variety of factors into account, most notably that only three days time elapsed between the bombing of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki, which would lean to alleging that the Americans cares less for allowing the obviously Japanese to develop towards Peace on their own terms than for demonstrating their bomb on civilians to threaten the Russians. [1]Parts of the Potsdam Declaration and the Demand for Japanese Surrender also called for an "irrevocable" alteration of Japanese Culture, particularly concerning their emperor, as outlined below. The Japanese not surrendering after Hiroshima is equivalent to a scenario where Portland, USA is bombed and the bomber demands the forfeiture of the constitution from the rest of the United States. Would surrender be finalized within 3 days in this scenario? Obviously not - this scenario is comparable to the situation of the Japanese.Thus, if we use the affirmative stance's own logic that atomic bombing is the lone route possible for dissuading the Japanese, then a clear representation of as much and a granting of a more feasibly reasonable time period likely would have prompted a Japanese surrender without mass casualty.R1B) Japan's surrender was possible, if not probableAs I began to elaborate in C1A above, Japanese reluctance to surrender is a difficult concept to be definitively justified, especially since my opponent attributes this reluctance as being attributable to what is essentially alleged "suicidal brainlessness" on their part. Part of the Unconditional Demand of Surrender issued by the Americans would have, by extension, forfeited the powers of the Emperor Hirohito. [2] During the time period in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place, the power and position of the emperor played a major role in the functioning of Japanese society, and the Emperor would predictably be reluctant to [to his interpretation] resign all of his power under the Potsdam Declaration. It can be argue(d) that more clearly allowing the Emperor Hirohito to retain his status as partial/figurehead emperor in the Potsdam Declaration could have been a very simplistic fix to the war. Obviously, having been partially responsible for the actions of Japan in World War 2, allowing him to continually rule to the extent of power that he had during the war would be unfeasible. Oddly enough, even American Military Generals realized this.Secretary of State Joseph Grew, wrote to President Truman [3], Every evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne, indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne comprise irreducible Japanese terms...They are prepared for prolonged resistance if it be the intention of the United Nations to try the present emperor as a war criminal or to abolish the imperial institution...Failure on our part to clarify our intentions in this regard..will insure prolongation of the war and cost a large number of human lives. Secretary of War Stimson at the time wrote [3] "During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender. Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for." The emperor of Japan was revered as near godly culturally by the Japanese, in an almost similar fashion to the Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt. It was widely accepted by high ranking US officials that clarifying this term of the Potsdam Declaration (see below) to include the the fact that the Emperor would not be removed or culturally abolished could have enticed the Japanese surrender. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world. It can be easily misinterpreted even today by educated Americans that this part of the Potsdam Declaration could mandate the forfeiture or even trial of Emperor Hirohito as monarch of Japan. In reality, the Americans fully intended to refrain from inflicting harm upon the emperor and even would permit him to continue his reign until his death in 1989. [4]Had President Truman heeded the advice of his military advisers and clarified in the terms that the Emperor would retain his dignity as figurehead, it is very likely that the predictions of top US officials may have came true and Japan would have surrendered knowing their emperor and culture would be respected, especially considering that the Japanese people had actively elected pro-peace politicians as seen in R1C.R1C) The Japanese wanted peace more than notIn his arguments, my opponent asserts that the broader Japanese population did not want peace and instead sought violence. He is mislead in surmising this. The majority of his sentiment originates from American Propaganda that villainized the Japanese during WW2.In fact, the Japanese population that my opponent asserts were hungry for violence elected Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki in April 1945. His campaign consisted to a very vast extent of advocating for a peaceful end to the war. [5] All signs indicate that the majority of the Japanese were building towards advocating a peaceful resolution to the war, but American impatience costed lives.LC2. The Cold WarThis contention is avoided if R1A is valid. The major pretense that this argument falsely assumes is that, in order to successfully demonstrate the potential of the Atomic Bomb, it must be actually dropped on a city of civilians. Why? There is no justification given for asserting that the Russians, as much as the Japanese, would lack the basic function to interpret that the use of the atomic bomb assured mass death.LC3: Japanese War Crimes.In this argument, my opponent adopts the assertion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified because military regiments associated with Japan had commited atrocious acts in the past. In doing so, he is quite literally adopting the psychology that "two wrongs make in a right" in the form of the assertion that "one atrocious act justifies a second" As illustrated in my original contentions, the cruel and painful side effects of being exposed to the bombings around Hiroshima and Nagasaki are near equivalent to what would be considered a modern day war crime had anyone but the US committed it. In addendum, if the bombings were about punishing the Japanese for war crimes, it is unproven that any of the citizens even approved of the actions, making my opponent's assertion even more unjustified.Rebuttal:= COUNTER REBUTTALS =.. will be posted in my conclusion due to character limits. Lannan will counter-rebut my points and my final counterrebuttals will be in my last round.Sources[1] - (http://tinyurl.com...) [2] - (http://tinyurl.com...)[3] - (http://tinyurl.com...)[4] - (http://tinyurl.com...)[5] - (http://tinyurl.com...)