The dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan was the right thing to do.

Thanks Con.R1. Cold WarAgain, the Soviets would have known about the atomic bombs regardless of whether they were dropped or not, due to the spies that leaked information to them, causing them to know about it even before the FBI did. Con asserts that the atomic bombings made the Cold War worse, but doesn't actually back up this assertion besides saying "it opened their eyes". Perhaps, but one cannot say that things would have been better or worse had an alternative been used without analyzing the two ways and what would have happened. I provided studies that compared Operation Downfall to the atomic bombings done by respected and educated people while Con goes off of his subjective opinion to make his own conclusions.Con also asserts that the Cold War was bad. How was it bad? No shots were fired, no casualties happened, and nothing really changed besides the nuclear race between Soviet Russia and America. If we consider other factors such as the race for space, the result of that competition were some serious scientific advancements. This argument is weak because there is nothing to say that the Cold War would have been prevented or that that it negatively impacted anyone. Also, the United States couldn't have known what was going to happen as a result of the bombings, with the alleged Cold War being one, so it is faulty to blame the U.S. for factors that were unknown to them and out of their control.R2. Nature of JapanThe war crimes of Japan may have not directly affected the U.S., but they show how ruthless Japan was and how they would have likely treated the U.S. had they won. Knowing these factors, it was absolutely necessary that the U.S. used whatever war tactics it could that would work to cause the Japanese to surrender. Once the bombs were dropped, the surrender of Japan, one of the cruelest nations in the world at that time, surrendered, which shows how much of a success those bombs were. Had they not been dropped, the circumstances of both the Axis and Allies would have been much worse and the war would have dragged for possibly another several years, resulting in more millions of deaths that the studies I presented showed would have likely happened. The U.S. saved many lives by dropping those bombs, and that action was the most efficient way of winning the war.Con assumes that Japan "would have had no chance to defeat the Allies completely". How backed up is this claim? Let's look at the earlier battles of World War II. In the Battle of Iwo Jima in February 1945, it took American servicemen about a month to conquer an 8-square-mile island. From this alone there were 6,000 American and 18,000 Japanese lives taken[1]. The island of Okinawa took months to control and resulting in 12,500 Allied and 110,000 Japanese servicemens' lives taken. In addition, 142,000 innocent civilians suffered casualties[2]. Even if the war was still won, it would have taken more time and more lives to achieve. The atomic bombings accomplished so much in just a little bit of time, was the most efficient means of strategy, and was the least deadly way beat the Axis.R3. Ethics of WarThis argument falls apart here in two ways: (1) Con assumes that the lives of soldiers are less valuable than the lives of innocents, and (2) Con assumes that Operation Downfall would have resulted in no civilian casualties. The former is quite unethical as it degrades the lives of soldiers as far below that of innocents, and is justified by the line, "that is their job, risk, and that is why they are fighting". They are fighting so they can what, die? Of course not, they're fighting the freedoms of their people and themselves, and their lives are just as valuable as anyone else's. I don't know how Con could defend such an immoral premise, but that is the assertion that was made and should not be tolerated. My opponent needs to show why the deaths of five million soldiers are better than the deaths of 200,000 innocents. In the latter assumption, Con seems to think that less innocents would have died as a result of Operation Downfall, but again doesn't show evidence to back this claim. In the Battle of Okinawa alone, 142,000 civilians suffered casualties, which goes to show how much of a risk war was to the innocents. Had the bombs not been dropped, the battles would have continued and possibly a million more civilians would have died. Either way, the evidence is very clear about the bombings being the right decision. If they were never set off, there'd be tons of deaths anyway."Yes many Japanese citizens commited suicide but that was their choice. Us dropping the bombs was making that choice for them."Was it America's choice for Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor and their choice for thousands of their men to be killed? Obviously not. The point is that once you're in war, you don't have a "choice" as to exactly how many of your men will perish. You can, however, limit the number of deaths by using strategies such as atomic bombings that reduce the number of deaths that would have happened otherwise.Con brings up the Bombing of Tokyo, but that is irrelevant to this topic because no A-bombs were used. It's not my job to justify every action the U.S. took during WWII, but rather to discuss the ethics of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[1] http://www.historyofwar.org...[2] http://militaryhistory.about.com...