The U.S. should have used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in Japan.

My opponent has defended his arguments very well. I don't have anything to say to directly refute his arguments. In fact, his contentions support two of my options. Rather, I will now present some arguments for more viable options, as this was what I was set to do in Round 1. But first, a definition of a rather important word for this debate, that was used three times in the first paragraph: viable. Viable - having a reasonable chance of succeeding (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Something that is most viable, it would seem, would have the highest chance of succeeding. Here is a course of action that would have guaranteed the end of World War II in Japan: withdrawal. No fighting was occurring on U.S. soil. Japan was on the brink of defeat. If the U.S. offered to withdraw all troops from Japan, and forget that the war ever occurred, Japan would have loved the opportunity to forget the war that had been going so miserably for them. From (http://en.wikipedia.org...): "They confirmed earlier agreements about Germany, and reiterated the demand for unconditional surrender by Japan, specifically stating that 'the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.'" Japan ultimately had no hope in victory, and they were fighting for a draw. If the U.S. agreed to simply call the war a draw, and bring out a peace treaty, Japan would have readily accepted. However, the Allies instead demanded unconditional surrender, which really wasn't necessary. http://www.shsu.edu... "Also note continued Japanese determination to avoid surrender, hoping Americans would tire of the casualties and retreat." The Japanese didn't want to surrender. A peace treaty that was equal on both sides, with neither sides surrendering, but instead agreeing to a truce, would have had a higher chance of success in ending a war than two bombs. Therefore, a more viable option would have been to offer Japan the chance at a conditional surrender, which would have terminated the fighting immediately, with no cities blown up. It would show the U.S. to be a merciful nation, that doesn't unnecessarily blow things up. Another more viable option: blow up Tokyo. http://en.wikipedia.org... Tokyo is the capital of Japan. The Japanese government was located in Tokyo. If the government was blown up, then Japan would no longer have a governing body to participate in the war. If Japan cannot participate in WWII, then WWII is ended in Japan. This plan ultimately couldn't fail, and it would show the U.S. to be capable of ridding an entire country of its government. And yet another option: blow up all of Japan over time. http://www.sino.net... If we had a group of planes flying over Japan, we could have one of them drop a bomb on the northern tip of the northern island. We then call up the Japanese gov't and tell them what we've done, and give them a chance at surrender. An hour later, another plane drops a bomb just west of Sapporo. We inform them of this attack. If they still don't surrender, we drop a bomb halfway between the northern coast of the largest island and Tokyo. At this point, it is obvious: the next bomb will drop on Tokyo, and there isn't anything they can do about it. If they continue to refuse, we blow up all of Japan. This plan ends WWII in Japan in about three hours, which is a short time compared to the nine days after Hiroshima that it took for Japan to surrender. This would show the U.S. to have absolute strength. So, in conclusion, all three of my above options are more viable than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thank you for your quick response; I look forward to your next one.