Should the United States have Dropped the Atomic Bomb

First of all, you brought morality into this "The dropping of the two atom bombs on Japan were both just and moral." Second of all, I believe morality is a strong part of this argument. Do we live in a world without morality? If so, we might as well descend into anarchy, slaughter our mothers, and rape young children. Morality is an important part of any decision. So for complete conquest there would have been an even larger number of casualties in total than the stat I mentioned that strictly talks about Americans deaths. You fail to address that there are OTHER ALTERNATIVES. I proposed a demonstration - a show of force. You have not addressed this point. This renders your entire point useless. As for mutations, there was little accurate data or samples, as 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 the bomb, they did nothing. Yes, maybe there were few mutations. But the radiation, for sure, was inhumane. It made many, many suffer, made families lose what family members that they had left painfully, and slowly. "Next I will address your point that Americans didn't have to take all Japanese islands if they had decided to opt for a FULL invasion. This is true I agree that Island Hopping was a faster and more strategic way to gain a conquest. But this is where I should have been more clear earlier. My statistic about predicted number of deaths from a full American conquest over Japan was a prediction of deaths WITH island hopping strategy." Like I said, there are other alternatives; I merely provided this statement because of your ridiculous claim of invading and taking every single island. This was the strategy used in the war, anyhow. Previously you said that a demonstration over tokyo harbor would have been sufficient to convince Japan to surrender. yet this is not true either. Japan didn't surrender after the dropping of the first atomic bomb. We waited for them to surrender after, but they didn't. So why do you think they would have been swayed by a demonstration in their harbor? In Japan, as Hiroshima had been bombed, there was not enough time for the news of the bombing to reach the capital. As all communications had been knocked out. There was no time for the news to be spread to Tokyo, to have the Japanese military leaders discuss, argue, and debate, and finally have them relay the surrender terms. The U.S. was simply impatient to end the war, and dropped a second bomb as the news of the first was just filtering in. A demonstration over Tokyo harbor would've directly reached the Japanese. "In your last argument you mentioned that the Russians to be soon joining the war were the real reason Japan surrendered, and so the bomb was pointless." My point was that, even at the time, Russia was a Soviet controlled hell where Josef Stalin reigned supreme, killing many people and enforcing "The Ukraine Famine". The atomic bomb was merely power politics - used only to intimidate Russia, and to attempt to prevent future conflicts with them. Although noble, the Japanese shouldn't have suffered because of this. Please don't warp my arguments or use the "Straw man fallacy". "Japan's government had officially declared "Ketsugo". Ketsugo was a term they used for this specific proclamation. In it they swore to kill as many of the enemy as possible and wouldn't give up until they tired the world out of the war or they were completely obliterated or facing a clear and distinct promise of obliteration." For one, a demonstration, would, in fact, show that there was a clear and distinct promise of obliteration. Also, a demonstration would not require a bloody invasion, sparing even more American and Japanese lives. I honestly don't see why you are pushing this point. "Next I would like to briefly take the time to address a blatant misconduct on your part. This is a strictly evidential based debate, and I would appreciate if you would not compare me to a serial killer when it doesn't seem like a particular relevant piece of information regarding the debate. " I apologize. As for regarding Japanese internment camps, my point was that we were de-humanising the Japanese. This view was adopted across America, leading people to think of them as "Japs" or degenerates. This view is what led to the genocide in Hiroshima - which was not a moral, or good act. If a life is a life, as you say, then a demonstration would've saved many, many lives across the globe. By "Japan" I meant the Japanese mainland. Not the small islands and territories surrounding it. Also, I don't intend to argue this point, I merely point out this was Japan's outlook (as confirmed by declassified Japanese diplomatic channels). "Firstly I don't know why Japan didn't think we would originally not invade, because we had done just that previously in "The Great War"." This isn't relevant. And just because a match strikes a flame once, doesn't mean it will keep being able to produce a flame. "That still doesn't change the fact that japan came and killed 3000 good American men and women." So yeah, i guess it's ok to go blow up two cities and cause 100,000+ "Jap" lives. Who cares? They're just dirty, useless scummy Japs. (Sarcasm). If a life is a life, as you say, lets do some math. At Hiroshima, 100,000 died. At Nagasaki, 40,000 died. So. Added up, it's 140,000. IF the 3000 dead in Pearl Harbor justifies the bombings, then the ratio is 140:3 (apprx. 46 Japanese lives for one American life.) Is that fair, just moral, or good? I don't think so. "Japan relied on plentiful supplies of oil and rubber during World War 2 which the region HAD in abundance." I'm sure the Japanese eat oil and rubber, and use them to rebuild houses and educate their children. What can't you do with oil and rubber? As an island nation, it is riddled with plains and mountains. Approximately only 25% is suitable for farmland (rice growing, specifically). It is fragmented because of this, scattered around select areas in Japan, such as Tokyo. Also, there aren't many oil supplies in Japan. With virtually no domestic oil supplies Japan imports much crude oil from the Persian Gulf area. I'm not quite sure what you mean by plentiful oil supplies. The area around Japan is also no longer as populous also, as Japanese fish consumption has increased, as oceans become depleted. (http://www.harpercollege.edu...)