The bombings of Japan by the US were not necessary

“These laws were thrown out of the window when Japan completely went against all of the ethics of warfare most notably executing their own citizens and telling their soldiers to target first aid regiments which is one of the most basic laws.”You can’t abandon the rules of combat just because your enemy does. Japan did horrible things in China (Nanjing massacre) and in the Philippines (Bataan Death March) but that does not mean we can now justify something because it wasn’t as bad as that. Ever heard the saying two wrongs don’t make a right?“In the war they were best allies with Germany who were trying to create it first.” Part of the reason we dropped the bomb when we did was because we were in a race with Germany and wanted to prove we had beaten them to it (ironically using some scientists who had defected from them). Germany getting the bomb could indeed have been catastrophic however we could have proved we had it in another way ie, dropping it in a deserted but visible area. At which point mutually assured destruction would prevent them from attacking us. The United States is the only country to drop an atomic weapon on another country.As for the Philippines, we could have gotten them back as part of the negotiation of conditional surrender. “ if the Iraq government directly attacked us as in invade our fifty states not just man but every woman child and citizen would fight to the death to defend their homeland.”Of course we would and yes if we had invaded the Japanese mainland they likely wood have too but as I pointed out that most likely would not have been necessary.As I mentioned earlier Japan’s conditions for surrender were eventually met after the bomb.The Japanese would not have been likely to invade the American mainland, as they wanted to concentrate on securing the Pacific. [1] As well as it being implacable for a number of other reasons [2]“As for the idea that Einstein opposed the bomb it should be noted that he was one of the figures figures in its actual design.”Einstein was actually not a part of the Manhattan project but did develop the technology that would eventually. He did in fact make comments of regret for the bomb as mentioned in the previous round.The USSR was an ally of convenience; as soon as the war ended they became our biggest enemy. Nuclear weapons did play a big role in the next 40 years between the US and USSR but never during that period did either side drop a bomb. Again this due to Mutually Assured Destruction. If Atomic weapons have a legitimate se that would be it, as a bargaining tool rather than an actual weapon.I will now refer to the video my opponent used as a source. Mr. Van Kirk in the video as a member of the Enola Gay crew is a relevant source as he was right there when it happened, however it is his word against some of the greatest military leaders of the 20th Century (Eisenhower, MacArthur and others). As someone directly responsible for dropping the bomb it would make sense that he would try to justify his actions. He says that day wasn’t important and it ended really quickly. “It was easy, everything went exactly according to plan”. (video ~ 3:10) It was important to the Japanese and it wasn’t just like he dropped the bomb and no more problems, many people had just died, the fact that he didn’t give it a second thought at the time is disturbing. However as the video goes on it sounds as if he is trying to justify to both himself and the reporter why he did it.My opponent’s New York Times Reference (which he double posted for some reason) talks about how for 20 years after the bomb dropped the official story was universally accepted. There are a number of factors that can describe that. First of all Americans were still emotionally charged after the war and so would accept it as necessary. Secondly, it is very likely that not all the facts were known to the America public. Any discussion of numbers of deaths that could have happened if the bomb wasn’t dropped are purely conjectural and even his source admits that as the more orthodox critique. While Byrnes may have been the driving force behind convincing Truman to drop the bomb, he was not out in the field like Eisenhower who would therefore have had a better understanding of the situation and as I mentioned earlier he opposed the drop. Eve my opponents source admits that his Army adviser George C. Marshall wanted it dropped on a less urban area.The American people were not allowed to see pictures of the destruction for years, had they been able to, they might have felt differently. The victims suffered discrimination for years afterward de to a lack of understanding of radiation poisoning. [3]I thank my opponent and look forward to hearing his rebuttals.1 http://www.researcheratlarge.com...2 http://www.dalecozort.com...3 http://www.fogonazos.es...