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

I will first respond to it, then present my own rebuttal to his arguments. DEFENSE 1) Loss of LifeCon agrees that Nuclear bombs caused heavy casualties among civilians but says the Fire Bombing was worse which he says was the only other option available. Firstly, I contest the argument that it was the only option: Peaceful negotiations could have been made (I will elaborate on this in my argument about Postdam). Secondly, Con compares the loss of Japanese lives over the course of the war to the loss of lives resulting from two attacks that occurred 4 days apart. If my opponent wants to make a comparison of 2 atomic bombings with conventional bombs, he must pick 2 conventional bombs that the US used against Japan during WWII, not compare them with all the Japanese casualties that occurred due to conventional bombing in general. It can be seen that the Atomic Bombs were not the lesser of the two evils which my opponent's argument seems to imply. 2) Target ChoiceWhile Hiroshima had an army depot, it was chosen so that the blast would be as bad as possible (and therefore killing as many civilians as possible) because the surrounding mountains would focus the blast. "Choosing a purely military target would not have the same psychological effect that the US desired to attain. Think of the way Americans reacted to 9/11, and maybe you'll have a small understanding of the way the Japanese people must have felt. This fear is what eventually led to a surrender and the future peace and prosperity of both countries. "First, my opponent compares the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to 9/11 thereby shooting himself in the foot (unless he is prepared to argue that 9/11 was also justified). Second, the US did not surrender to the 9/11 terrorists so I fail to see why my opponent argues that "psychological effect" was needed to end the war and compares it to another psychological effect (World Trade Center) which started a war.3) MoralityCon's source [3] just says that it was possible that a third bomb exists. No real proof. So the US can't really take credit for having "a third bomb in waiting that they didn't use to demonstrate their power. ""The second bomb was delayed 3 days, which was plenty of time for Japan to enter into peace agreements. " The second bomb was not delayed in order to give Japan time to surrender, but was waiting only for a sufficient amount of plutonium-239 for the atomic bomb. [4] Japan was crippled from the first bomb. They barely had any time to comprehend what was going on. As I already pointed out the US planned two bombs right from the beginning regardless of whether the Japanese had time to respond to the first one with a surrender. My opponent doesn't respond to my argument that Truman ordered the bombing partly to intimidate the Russians. 4) NecessityThe US had the option of peacefully negotiating a ceasefire and an end to the war as opposed to issuing ultimatums and then using Atom bombs. Postdam was definitely not a treaty that the Japanese could realistically accept. My opponent says that I am strawpicking my arguments while doing the exact same thing himself. The full list of conditions on the treaty is too long to list but there were fair as well as unfair terms such as the Japanese sovereignty being limited to minor islands and others that I mentioned in the previous round. It also left no room for negotiation. REBUTTAL1) Atomic bombs saved livesCon argues that "nothing but complete and utter defeat" would have caused the Japanese to surrender. This is not true as they were on the verge of surrendering when the bombs were used. Japanese offensive capabilities, navy and air force were greatly weakened and almost exhausted at the time the bombs were dropped. The Russian attack of August 8 on Manchuria met little or no resistance. [1] In this situation, I don't feel that my Con's argument that the bombs saved money and lives to be accurate. His argument talks involves potentially saving lives which is unknown, but I showed that it definitely took lives. 2) Civilians not innocentCon's source says: "Because the U. S. military planners assumed that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population, high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. " [2]Con argues that Japanese civilians were "fanatically" hostile as fact whereas his source says that it was a mere assumption. The military would naturally assume that most people they meet on enemy land are hostile for their own safety. An even bigger issue here is that even if some civilians attacked US soldiers, how does Con know that they were the same civilians targeted during the Atomic Bombings? I will reiterate my contention that innocent civilians died. Sources[1] . http://bitURL.net...[2] . http://bitURL.net...[3] . http://bitURL.net...[4] . http://bitURL.net...[5] . http://bitURL.net...