New Member Tournament: The Atomic Bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified.

Thanks to freedomsquared for agreeing to debate this topic. I hope that it will be a fun and interesting contribution to this tournament. To comply with the 3 rounds max for this tournament, as agreed on in the PMRd 1: Pro - Opening, Con - Rebuttal & Opening Rd 2: Pro - Defense & Rebuttal, Con - Rebuttal & DefenseRd 3: Pro - Defense & Rebuttal, Con - Rebuttal onlyClarifications should be in the comments section. Opening ArgumentI believe that the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US were not justified and the loss of life and expense outweighed any potential benefits. I have four main points to make:1) Loss of life of innocent civiliansThe two bombings killed about 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. The majority of the casualities were civilian [1]. The total is at least 240,000 while some sources put it at 270,000. Either way, there were a lot of casualities.2) Wrong choice of targets It would have been much better to attack Japanese military bases to cripple its military power rather than killing innocent civilians who never harmed the United States in any way. Hiroshima was chosen because the hills adjacent to it would focus the blast on a very large part of the city [3] including non-military residential areas. Despite there being military bases at Hiroshima, civilians were the biggest losers.3) MoralityIt was immoral for the US to "demonstrate" its power by killing and injuring civilians because human (civilian) lives should not be used as tools for political demonstrations. Historians suggest that Truman may have wanted to intimidate the Russians before they entered the war [1].In fact, the second bomb wasn't even delayed to give Japan time to surrender. From the beginning, the US planned to use two bombs regardless of the Japanese response to the first one [2] killing even more innocent civilians just to show the Japanese what the US can do.4) (Un)Necessity/Unfairness of PostdamOne of the most popular reason given by the US government in order to justify the attacks is Japan's refusal to sign the Postdam Declaration. However, this treaty was very unfair and called for the Allied occupation of Japan with Japanese sovereignity limited to minor islands and the Japanese military being disarmed [4]. No wonder the Japanese refused to sign. If a peaceful negotiation with fair terms was presented, the possibility of a Japanese surrender would have been greater.It was not even so much a treaty as it was an ultimatum threatening "prompt and utter destruction"[4] for refusing to comply. Truman just used those big words to further his political agenda and seem like a powerful man which again connects to my morality argument.Conclusion The US was not justified in attacking Japan and killing Japanese civilians. There were better alternatives and it was more of a political agenda with civilians on the receiving end than a necessary military operation. Sources[1] http://www.infoplease.com...[2] http://history1900s.about.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...