Debate: Was it right for the U.S to throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Side: No

Oh, boy, now this debate is something I could go on for ages about.Yes, I understand the urgency that the government felt, and I don't really blame Truman for making that decision, although I do hate the statement he released after Hiroshima was bombed (see later). And yes, it was the lesser of two evils; I'm glad that we avoided having to kill a million people, and that we ended the war, but the act in and of itself was not morally okay.Also, I do not believe that the Potsdam Declaration was an apt warning. All the Japanese knew was that they would face "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not surrender, but from my understanding, the US didn't even hint that they were going to use a new kind of weapon. The Japanese probably just expected more firebombing, which they didn't like, but they were used to it and didn't see it as much of a threat. Plus, I think the US was extremely impatient in waiting only three days before dropping the second bomb; that was't really fair, because the after-effects of nuclear bombs didn't even become apparent until a few months later.Oh, and then there's Pearl Harbor, which does not justify anything! In terms of the chronology of World War II, it is a very relevant thing, but I can't stand it when people say that Hiroshima was revenge for Pearl Harbor. I mean, if you do want to compare them in terms of death tolls, then the bombing of Hiroshima alone was 50 times worse than the attack on Pearl Harbor. But it doesn't matter any more than all the other stuff people complain about what Japan did during the war. Of course those were still bad things, but here's the thing: we (most likely) didn't kill the people who were doing those bad things. We just killed people who belonged to the same country. Is it not totally possible that the civilians we killed in Hiroshima had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor? Maybe they didn't even think that Pearl Harbor was right. Maybe they wanted to end the war! I don't see why they should have to pay for other peoples' mistakes.Also, I hate how the people involved in the bombing treated it like a totally unconditional success and were insanely happy about that. Have you ever heard Truman's statement? "We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war." Well, congratulations to them for ending the worst war in history, but that doesn't mean they have to present it as such a good, heroic act. And these bombs were intense--60-80,000 people were killed in the first few seconds, which is a really mind-numbing statistic. They were so much worse the firebombs in terms of effects, and a part of me actually thinks that maybe the smaller quantity of people that were killed (in comparison to how many could have been) doesn't make it that much better, because an invasion would not have necessitated such bizarrely extreme means of killing. Oh yeah, and the truth is that there was a lab rat aspect to it too, since the people of Hiroshima were the first people to ever be hit. And that's just disgusting.