Was the US justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Was the US justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in History

By ThinkBigThinkBig 36 Pts
One of the most controversial moves of WWII was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On the pro side, Henry I. Miller writes:

"During World War I, Europe lost most of an entire generation of young men. Combatant fatalities alone were approximately 13 million. Memories of that era were still fresh three decades later. In 1945, Allied military planners and political leaders were correct, both tactically and morally, in not wanting to repeat history. It was their duty to weigh carefully the costs and benefits for the American people, present and future. Had they been less wise or less courageous, the American post-war “baby boomer” generation would have been much smaller."

However, not all agree that it was necessary to achieve victory. Christopher Check, in his article for Catholic Answers writes:

"[T]he vast majority of the victims were civilians. Why were the city centers chosen as ground zero, where civilian populations were most dense, rather than the industrial suburbs or the ports? The bombings also violated the condition of proportionality. Necessarily tied to the question of proportionality is the insistence on “unconditional surrender,” which inevitably inspires both sides to resort to desperate means. Once an aggressor has been rendered neutral, to drive him to accept humiliating terms does not meet the Church’s requirement to seek peace by every possible means.

I personally am conflicted on this issue. Part of me says that it was necessary to end the war and to get Japan to surrender; however, some sources say that Japan was already ready to surrender - they just weren't willing to submit to US terms. On that side, the bombs would not be justified because it caused great civilian loss for little benefit.
aarongdropoutjoecavalryBaconToes
  1. Was the US justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    14 votes
    1. Yes
      57.14%
    2. No
      42.86%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • I think there were justified. Japan wouldn't have surrendered; they didn't surrender even after the first bomb, so we had to drop a second. It was a sad state of affairs but it had to be done. Imagine being so ruthless and stubborn that after hundreds of thousands of your own people are killed, you still don't surrender, even with the threat of another bomb. Very sad that it had to happen.

    A similar debate was here if you wanna check it out: 
    http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/992/were-the-atomic-bombings-necessary
    spandamAmpersandEmeryPearson
  • dropoutdropout 39 Pts
    edited June 2017
    This was a wrong doing, killing so many people. Although, US soldiers and others in the US could have been killed if that wouldn't have happened. I believe it was the wrong thing to do due to it being unnecessary and killing so many people possibly American and not.
    EmeryPearson
  • agsragsr 848 Pts
    A really tough ethical decision, but I think it was justified
    BaconToesanonymousdebaterEmeryPearson
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @melanielust , thank you for making your argument which Dema's reasonable, but I disagree with due to my own argument.

    The bombing had brought radiation to the area which is not a short term problem, but rather a much long term issue bringing the US possible costs in the future of the bombif or attack which also killed many. Although, the war could have killed many Americans and others as well, although it killed many japanese and others with the attack or also called bombing.
    melanielust
  • It's hard to say, but I'd have to say no.  Only because any loss of life is just terrible.  Maybe it was justified as it was the best course of action to stop Japan.  I like how Captain America thought though with Sokovia in Avengers 2.  He was the only one to deny the Avengers of blowing up the city to save Earth.  Doing that saved everyone (well except Quicksilver) but he was right.  Maybe the same would have happened with Japan.  
    EmeryPearson
  • This question is difficult to argue both sides, given the fact that our current age is different from the war-ridden era in the 1930s and 1940s. Evaluating United States action in Japan in World War II requires contextualization. When the United States was desperate to end the war and desperate for Japan to 100 percent surrender, President Truman chose to use nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both are industrial cities. 

    The choice is definitely not humanitarian given the fact that using nuclear weapons will cause huge long-term effects lasting generations in an area. The fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are industrial cities with a large population makes the whole choice less morally acceptable. 

    In fact, because of the United States' choice to use nuclear weapons in Japan, the Stalin regime started to fasten its development of nuclear weapons to achieve a balance as the Cold War started to emerge. Overall, the action does more harm than good morally and politically. 
    EmeryPearson
  • Saying that the Japanese would never surrender without the bombs is trite and false; they were already trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped and that is a matter of record.

    Now they weren't trying to surrender unconditionally, but the conditions they asked for were basic and the key one - agreeing not to take action against the Japanese Royal Family - was something the USA decided against doing anyway.

    We must also remember that unconditional surrender wasn't even a must or some deeply held moral desire, it was something Roosevelt spontaneously pulled out of his add in a conference in Casablanca in January 1943 without consulting anyone else or any of the Allies and just got a life of it's own. Many people within the administration and in the military spoke out against it as needlessly prolonging the war. MacArthur's Southwest Pacific Command explained "to dethrone, or hand, the emperor would cause a tremendous and violent reaction from all Japanese. Hanging of the Emperor to them would be comparable to the cruxifiction of Christ to us. All would fight to die like ants."

    The Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew said "Surrender by Japan would be highly unlikely regardless of military defeat, in the absence of public undertaking by the President that unconditional surrender would not mean the elimination of the present dynasty if the Japanese people desire it's retention."

    You can find similar sentiments from James Forrestal (Secretary of the Nazy), Henry Stimson (Secretary of War), John McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War) and Admiral Leahy (JCOS).

    Truman stuck by his statement for political reasons, it simply wasn't necessary.

    Not only that, but dropping the bombs didn't even amount to much. The Allies were already doing comparable damage with conventional bombing campaigns, wiping out entire cities like Toyama and in one bombing campaign (Operation Meetinghouse) inflicting more death and destruction that either atomic bomb.

    So why use them and why did Japan surrender? The Soviets is the answer to both questions, although of course as discussed above Japan were already trying to surrender.

    Prior to the successful Trinity test, the Allies had been staking it on the Soviets to bring to war to a swift end. It has been recognised by every nation, including Japan itself, that the entry of the Soviets into the war would be a death blow. Japan was being pushed to the limit already and the addition of the Soviets would spell the end.

    However with the news of the successful test of a nuke, the dynamic changed. The USA and UK were already eyeing up the Soviet Union as the enemy in the next war. With the bomb was the possibility of freezing out the Soviets and going back on the concessions agreed upon at Yalta. They actually stopped them from signing the Postdam decleration, even though the Soviets had attended on the basis that they would sign it and that doing so would have been a clear signal about Soviet intentions and would have only hastened Japanese surrender.

    Now the USSR invaded pretty much as the bombs were dropping and in a matter of a couple of weeks were on there way to completely wiping out Japan's mainland holdings and had inflicted as much damage as the allies had managed after years of war. This was a massive and devastating blow to the Japanese, moreso than the bombs - which after all did nothing that hadn't already been done several times over by conventional firebombing campaigns.

    Suzuki, president of Japan, said at the time that they had to surrender or "the Soviet union will take not only Manchuria, Korea, Katafuto, but also Hokkaido. This would destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States."

    Deputy Chief of Staff General Torashiro Kawabe said: "it was only in a gradual manner that the horrible wreckage which had been made of Hiroshima became known... in comparison, the Soviet entry into the war was a great shock when it actually came. reports reaching Tokyo described Russian forces as 'invading in swarms'. It gave us all the more severe shock and alarm because we had been in constant fear of it with a vivid imagination that 'the vast red Army forces in Europe were now being turned against us'"

    Admiral Toyodo said: "I believe the Russian participation in the war against Japan rather than the atom bombs did more to hasten surrender."

    Leuitenent General Sumihisa Ikeda, director of Central Planning, said "Upon hearing of the Soviet entry into the war, I felt our chances were gone."

    The Army Ministry directly stated "The Soviet participation in the war had the most direct impact on Japan's decision to surrender."

    The US War department conducted a post-bombing study in 1946 entitled "Use of Atomic Bombs on Japan" which found "little mention... of the use of the atomic bomb by the United States in the discussions leading up to the decision.... it is almost a certainty that the Japanese would have capitulated upon the entry of Russia into the war." (Emphasis mine)

    The point of view was backed up by many senior people.

    Truman Chief of staff declared the bombs against "every Christian ethic I have ever heard of" and stated the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender... the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

    General Douglas MacArthur consistently stated the war could have been finished months earlier with modified surrender terms.

    General Henry Arnolds said "atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse".

    General Curtis LeMay said "Even without the atomic bomb, Japan would have surrendered in two weeks."

    Admiral ernest Kind, Chester Nimitz and William Halsey made similar comments, calling it unnecessary.

    Brigadier General Carter Clarke said "We brought them down to an abject surrender through accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew we didn't need to do it, we used them to experiment for two atomic bombs."

    The purpose was to to end the war in the USA's favour rather than the USSR's as well as to sideline Russia in upcoming negotiations and place the USA and the pre-eminent world-power.

    It was completely unnecessary for forcing Japan's surrender

    EmeryPearsonFascism
  • someone234someone234 615 Pts
    edited March 10
    Simple answer no, the move had no defense and offensively struck innocents.

    Negligible number of politicians or military were hit in the blast, it targeted civilians and was American International Police culture at its worst. 
    EmeryPearson
  • FascismFascism 332 Pts
    @spandam ;
    I agree with you that the US shouldn't have nuked Japan, but it should be noted that the US had no idea of the magnitude of the long-term problems the nuke would bring. So this isn't a valid reason to why the US shouldn't have done it since they didn't know this information. 
  • @Fascism they knew exactly how devastating it would be and used Japan as a testing grounds to test the real maximum of what it could result in.

    EmeryPearson
  • FascismFascism 332 Pts
    @someone234 They had no knowledge of the complete strength of the long-term radiation effects. 

    You say that they "used Japan as a testing grounds to test the real maximum of what it could result in."

    If this statement is true, then your original statement that "they knew exactly how devastating it would be" would be wrong. If they needed to test its full magnitude then they wouldn't have known its full magnitude. It is a clear contradiction. 

    I agree with the second part of your statement, that they used Japan as testing grounds to see the effects, but I don't agree with the first part, that they knew the power of the effects. 
    BaconToes
  • @Fascism they knew what it could do just not how severe it could do it.
  • FascismFascism 332 Pts
    @someone234 ;
    That is what I said. My original statement was, "the US had no idea of the magnitude of the long-term problems the nuke would bring." 

    Magnitude - the great size or extent of something
  • Fascism said:
    @spandam ;
    I agree with you that the US shouldn't have nuked Japan, but it should be noted that the US had no idea of the magnitude of the long-term problems the nuke would bring. So this isn't a valid reason to why the US shouldn't have done it since they didn't know this information. 
    The USA not knowing how many they would kill is not the same as them not thinking they would kill people or thinking they would kill a significantly smaller number.
  • FascismFascism 332 Pts
    @Ampersand I agree. 
  • Yes, as the invasion of Japan was to take place without Unconditional Surrender, it was a trade of Japanese lives for American ones. 

    As they were the aggressors, I don't take issue with them covering the cost over America.
  • Yes, as the invasion of Japan was to take place without Unconditional Surrender, it was a trade of Japanese lives for American ones. 

    As they were the aggressors, I don't take issue with them covering the cost over America.
    The issue of unconditional surrender is a red herring, a poor excuse that was stuck to for political reasons. If you are killing people in a war to meet your political aims rather than out of necessary need to defend yourself and achieve peace, you have to justification. You are not trading Japanese lives for American lives, you are trading Japanese lives for American jingoism.
  • I think the bombings were justified. I believe more lives, both American and Japanese would have been lost if conventional fighting had continued on. Also, we gave Japan the chance to surrender and they refused. The emperor of Japan knew the consequences.
  • Ampersand said:
    The issue of unconditional surrender is a red herring, a poor excuse that was stuck to for political reasons. If you are killing people in a war to meet your political aims rather than out of necessary need to defend yourself and achieve peace, you have to justification. You are not trading Japanese lives for American lives, you are trading Japanese lives for American jingoism.
    ...so your position is that the US should have stayed out of WWII altogether.
  • I think the bombings were justified. I believe more lives, both American and Japanese would have been lost if conventional fighting had continued on. Also, we gave Japan the chance to surrender and they refused. The emperor of Japan knew the consequences.
    The Japanese were literally trying to arrange a surrender even before the bombs dropped as has already been discussed.
  • CYDdharta said:
    Ampersand said:
    The issue of unconditional surrender is a red herring, a poor excuse that was stuck to for political reasons. If you are killing people in a war to meet your political aims rather than out of necessary need to defend yourself and achieve peace, you have to justification. You are not trading Japanese lives for American lives, you are trading Japanese lives for American jingoism.
    ...so your position is that the US should have stayed out of WWII altogether.
    No, fighting for a just peace and an end to a conflict is acceptable. Fighting to meet arbitrary and meaningless metrics is not.
  • Ampersand said:
    No, fighting for a just peace and an end to a conflict is acceptable. Fighting to meet arbitrary and meaningless metrics is not.
    A just peace and an end to the conflict is exactly what we got.  There was nothing arbitrary or meaningless about fighting for an unconditional surrender.
  • FascismFascism 332 Pts
    @CYDdharta Yes but we could have gotten a just peace and an end to the conflict just as easily if we didn't nuke Japan, and we knew this too. 
  • Fascism said:
    @CYDdharta Yes but we could have gotten a just peace and an end to the conflict just as easily if we didn't nuke Japan, and we knew this too. 
    Incorrect.  If we had "known" this, we wouldn't have been making plans and amassing troops for an invasion.
  • @CYDdharta You don't get it. they knew Japan would surrender anyway, they just wanted to bully it and bombed the areas where no politician and barely any military personnel lived. Just stop defending the indefensible.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 729 Pts
    edited April 12
    @CYDdharta You don't get it. they knew Japan would surrender anyway, they just wanted to bully it and bombed the areas where no politician and barely any military personnel lived. Just stop defending the indefensible.
    I get it; just like I get that the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, and FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.  If it were true, we wouldn't have been making plans and amassing troops for an invasion.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1618 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    @CYDdharta You don't get it. they knew Japan would surrender anyway, they just wanted to bully it and bombed the areas where no politician and barely any military personnel lived. Just stop defending the indefensible.
    I get it; just like I get that the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, and FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.  If it were true, we wouldn't have been making plans and amassing troops for an invasion.
    They were making plans long before. I wouldn't say FDR knew about it as much as was responsible for it.

    http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/pearl-harbor-false-flag-75th-anniversary/

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5432931
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @CYDdharta As long as you get it then we're fine. ;)
  • I actually have mixed opinions about this, in that although countless citizen lives were lost, there was a purpose behind the bombings, which was the surrender of Japan. I believe that the first bombing was unjustified and although the Japanese knew about this beforehand, they could not have predicted the massive destruction that the bomb could have done. However, the second one was justified, because when Japan released a statement concerning the bombings, they stated that they would fight until the last man fell, but at the expense of citizen lives. Now, that is not to say that I condone the suffering of thousands of innocents who had no part to do in the war, a clear violation of the just war theory, I think that the US should have first dropped the bomb in a low key area far away from individuals to show Japan the power of the bombs, and then drop it on a military fort should they still refuse.

    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @WilliamSchulz Neither was justified, THEY DID NOT HIT POLITICIANS OR THE MILITARY!!!!

    Do you think they missed? Are you that naive?
  • No, what I was stating is that they should have dropped the bombs on a military fort or other areas away from civilization. The reason that makes the bombings justified is the sole loss of Japanese lives and not of combined lives. The bombs prevented a land invasion, which would have caused more damage to the Japanese economy if such warfare was used, similar to Sherman's March, but with more explosives.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Obviously, there was a lot of innocent people that were killed, and very few people were actually members of the military or political by nature. The US bombings were justified the second time, but could have been carried out more efficiently if the government followed my hypothetical. The reason I find the second bombing justified is because Japan made no clear terms of surrender, thus indicating that the way would continue onwards, so to prevent a land invasion, the second bomb was dropped. Admittedly, the first one was unjustified, but only because it violated war theory, but once the new atomic theory was understood and disregarded by the Japanese, the next drop becomes justified. Say that I steal a TV from you, now that is unjustified, but say that you caught me on camera and didn't do anything about it. If I steal from you again, it is still wrong, but you had knowledge that I might come back, and your inaction gives me motivation to continue actions until you take action yourself. 
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • someone234someone234 615 Pts
    edited April 12
    @WilliamSchulz Easy to chit-chat here saying 'I defend with words look at me so great' do you know what your words are saying? Do you know what you type "Obviously, there was a lot of innocent people that were killed, and very few people were actually members of the military or political by nature."

    Same guy saying that then goes to say "Say that I steal a TV from you, now that is unjustified, but say that you caught me on camera and didn't do anything about it. If I steal from you again, it is still wrong, but you had knowledge that I might come back, and your inaction gives me motivation to continue actions until you take action yourself. "

    Psychopathic maniac I tell you this straight. 
    You are saying that those killed by the bomb had a say in their government not surrendering, shut up and think really you are making me furious with blood-boiling rage at what you are saying here. Go to Japan, fly there and ignore this stupid weeaboo anime culture, go to real Japan. ask the elderly of the truth of Hiroshima and how their own government laughed at them being hit. In Japanese culture, from the Samurai through to the Kamikaze Pilots of WW2, Japanese authority loves to use its own people are disposable pawns. Their government betrayed them, they knew what USA would do and those hit were not at all deserving of what happened.

    "Obviously, there was a lot of innocent people that were killed, and very few people were actually members of the military or political by nature."

    Yes, genius, oh yes, obviously you are damn right it is OBVIOUS AS HELL AND YOU ARE DEFENDING IT.
  • someone234someone234 615 Pts
    edited April 12
    LOOK AT SUBSTANTIAL RATINGS THANK YOU DEBRA YOU THINK FOR ONCE

    (made edit for spelling errors):


  • You're right, the people who were bombed could not force their governing officials to surrender to the US, but it was the job of the governing officials to take action and surrender. The reason I used the TV example is because inaction prompts more action until opposite action is taken. It was the US's fault for the first bombing, but it was then conversely Japan's fault for failing to respond to the 77,000+ deaths. 
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • someone234someone234 615 Pts
    edited April 12
    @WilliamSchulz You think governments are 'enemies' HAHAHAHA you really think this? Why don't any politicians die in wars (okay Hitler did, not my point)? It's a game, William and they are laughing their heads off at us.
  • There is a clear and obvious reasons why politicians do not fight in wars. When considering the strength of a military, you might have your draft volunteers, but keep in mind, an efficient military will have members aged 18-40, not senators like John McCain who are 65 and above. A military is well trained in certain concepts such as bravery, courage, and strength of mind. Politicians focus on the law, social outlook, and political theory, and are not adapted or trained to preform well in the military unlike a 23 year old man who is able and fit for service. 
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @WilliamSchulz Do you know why it's called service and not heroism? :)
  • Because heroism is a result of the outstanding service done by members of the military, and heroism is not given, it is earned.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • someone234someone234 615 Pts
    edited April 12
    @WilliamSchulz The real heroes are oftentimes those the service fights against. From the Tamil Tigers to Nelson Mandela, the means can go to the barbaric and even the freedom fighters become maniacs (which happened with the tamil tigers, they turned into the bad guys but in their own way they were blackmailed into doing so).

    "I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong, than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil. "
    Malcolm X
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/lists/authors/top_10_malcolm_x_quotes
  • Care to define service here, as in military, or governmental service. In your example, you use military operations that service fights against, but Malcolm X led a political movement (mostly nonviolent) in avocation of black rights. Yes, heroism is not solely based on service in the military, it can be found in many locations, you could say I possess heroism for supporting the Right to Life movement. Heroism is what we consider a virtue that is obtainable through actions committed. Even if a person is fighting for a wrong cause, we can call the action misplaced, but the process one of heroism. However, heroism is when the person who is heroic, as you state, knows his place, but also has accessed his position and knows beyond a doubt that the position he/she stands on is valid, sound, and unbreakable. Then, the virtues that follow are a result of the future action taken.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @WilliamSchulz
    If you say this:
    Heroism is what we consider a virtue that is obtainable through actions committed. Even if a person is fighting for a wrong cause, we can call the action misplaced, but the process one of heroism. However, heroism is when the person who is heroic, as you state, knows his place, but also has accessed his position and knows beyond a doubt that the position he/she stands on is valid, sound, and unbreakable. Then, the virtues that follow are a result of the future action taken.

    Then politicians are the least heroic of any society even if what they stand for is right. I agree entirely with you. MLK was allowed to be a successful coward because Malcolm X and his crew said 'hey white people, you either listen to MLK or deal with us'. MLK would have been tossed to the curb and prevented from making a single speech had it not been for the Malcolm X's and John Lewis' of his movement.

    As you're clearly raised in a conservative white neibhborhood you may not know about JL:

    https://www.biography.com/people/john-lewis-21305903 Read, he is almost more admirable than MX (but MX I love for different reasons than admiration).
  • Heh heh, I wasn't raised conservatively, I was raised independently, so that I wouldn't be restricted by one format of thinking. Socially, I am a conservative, in pro-life, and issues dealing with the quality of life, economically, I am a liberal, I support green energy, more money into the education system, and higher taxes on the rich. 

    Onto the debate at hand, you seem to propose that the brittle and imposing nature of MX caused more change than MLK. The difference is, are we going to achieve black rights by threatening violence or by proclaiming peace to millions of people. While threats may seem like a short term victory, it will never cause change, it will make your "at the time superiors" hate you even more and not want to give you what you desire, whereas the peaceful person who exposes the wrongdoings of the system will force the "superiors" to give concessions and end segregation. However, I fail to see where this correlates with the bombings on Japan. All men may have had heroism, but threatening violence is not heroic, making change without violence, suffering through violence taken on you, is more heroic than trying to fight fire with gasoline.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • I think that the bombings were justified.  If we hadn’t done that, Japan would’ve kept the war going for long after that.
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • Heh heh, I wasn't raised conservatively, I was raised independently, so that I wouldn't be restricted by one format of thinking. Socially, I am a conservative, in pro-life, and issues dealing with the quality of life, economically, I am a liberal, I support green energy, more money into the education system, and higher taxes on the rich. 

    Onto the debate at hand, you seem to propose that the brittle and imposing nature of MX caused more change than MLK. The difference is, are we going to achieve black rights by threatening violence or by proclaiming peace to millions of people. While threats may seem like a short term victory, it will never cause change, it will make your "at the time superiors" hate you even more and not want to give you what you desire, whereas the peaceful person who exposes the wrongdoings of the system will force the "superiors" to give concessions and end segregation. However, I fail to see where this correlates with the bombings on Japan. All men may have had heroism, but threatening violence is not heroic, making change without violence, suffering through violence taken on you, is more heroic than trying to fight fire with gasoline.
    MLK was allowed to be a successful coward because Malcolm X and his crew said 'hey white people, you either listen to MLK or deal with us'. MLK would have been tossed to the curb and prevented from making a single speech had it not been for the Malcolm X's and John Lewis' of his movement.
  • 1. MLK was not a coward, because a non-violent protest amidst beating and dog attacks from whites is more heroic and brave than threatening the same violence on the population you are trying to persuade.  

    2. Where does this correlate with the bombings on Japan?
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • I actually have mixed opinions about this, in that although countless citizen lives were lost, there was a purpose behind the bombings, which was the surrender of Japan. I believe that the first bombing was unjustified and although the Japanese knew about this beforehand, they could not have predicted the massive destruction that the bomb could have done. However, the second one was justified, because when Japan released a statement concerning the bombings, they stated that they would fight until the last man fell, but at the expense of citizen lives. Now, that is not to say that I condone the suffering of thousands of innocents who had no part to do in the war, a clear violation of the just war theory, I think that the US should have first dropped the bomb in a low key area far away from individuals to show Japan the power of the bombs, and then drop it on a military fort should they still refuse.

    If an action is wrong, it's the perpetrators who should be blamed.

    Your logic seems to not only condone otherwise immoral behaviour but seems like it actively encourages war crimes - as after the first crime you just keep on blaming the victim for not surrendering to protect their civilians now that they've seen you're willing to kill them..
  • Ampersand said:
    I actually have mixed opinions about this, in that although countless citizen lives were lost, there was a purpose behind the bombings, which was the surrender of Japan. I believe that the first bombing was unjustified and although the Japanese knew about this beforehand, they could not have predicted the massive destruction that the bomb could have done. However, the second one was justified, because when Japan released a statement concerning the bombings, they stated that they would fight until the last man fell, but at the expense of citizen lives. Now, that is not to say that I condone the suffering of thousands of innocents who had no part to do in the war, a clear violation of the just war theory, I think that the US should have first dropped the bomb in a low key area far away from individuals to show Japan the power of the bombs, and then drop it on a military fort should they still refuse.

    If an action is wrong, it's the perpetrators who should be blamed.

    Your logic seems to not only condone otherwise immoral behaviour but seems like it actively encourages war crimes - as after the first crime you just keep on blaming the victim for not surrendering to protect their civilians now that they've seen you're willing to kill them..
    The fact of the matter is, dropping bombs is not immoral, even in a wartime situation. The action can be considered just or unjust, but not immoral, as nothing that they did was illegal or against moral code. You could argue that citizen deaths makes up for this, but use my TV example, America wanted a quick way to end the war with as few lives as possible, so inaction prompted further action until action was met. 
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Ampersand said:
    I actually have mixed opinions about this, in that although countless citizen lives were lost, there was a purpose behind the bombings, which was the surrender of Japan. I believe that the first bombing was unjustified and although the Japanese knew about this beforehand, they could not have predicted the massive destruction that the bomb could have done. However, the second one was justified, because when Japan released a statement concerning the bombings, they stated that they would fight until the last man fell, but at the expense of citizen lives. Now, that is not to say that I condone the suffering of thousands of innocents who had no part to do in the war, a clear violation of the just war theory, I think that the US should have first dropped the bomb in a low key area far away from individuals to show Japan the power of the bombs, and then drop it on a military fort should they still refuse.

    If an action is wrong, it's the perpetrators who should be blamed.

    Your logic seems to not only condone otherwise immoral behaviour but seems like it actively encourages war crimes - as after the first crime you just keep on blaming the victim for not surrendering to protect their civilians now that they've seen you're willing to kill them..
    The fact of the matter is, dropping bombs is not immoral, even in a wartime situation. The action can be considered just or unjust, but not immoral, as nothing that they did was illegal or against moral code. You could argue that citizen deaths makes up for this, but use my TV example, America wanted a quick way to end the war with as few lives as possible, so inaction prompted further action until action was met. 
    Dropping bombs can very easily be immoral and illegal. Militaries are required to comply with international military law, the most basic principle of which are distinction (e.g. between civilian and soldier) and proportionality (actions against legitimate military targets should not cause undue harm to the civilian population). You can easily commit war crimes with guns and knives, elt along bombs - it all depends on how you use them and why.

    You have already effectively conceded that in the first instance the act was immoral due to the massive harm to civilians it caused: "Obviously, there was a lot of innocent people that were killed, and very few people were actually members of the military or political by nature"

    Nothing about that changes with the second bomb. The onus is on the USA not to commit war crimes, not on the Japanese to surrender as soon as war crimes are committed against them. Your backwards logic incentives war crimes if anything as it puts the blame on the victim rather than the perpetrator.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch