Although American's were angry about Pearl Harbor, the atomic bomb was still immoral and the punishment didn't fit the crime.

The Atomic Archive says that an estimated 199,000 people were killed because of the immediate effects of the atomic bomb. About.com says that only 2,335 people were killed at Pearl Harbor. There is a very big difference between the attacks.

Not only this, but "The two cities were of limited military value..." (Debate on Pros and Cons doc.)

Your statement is flawed, it's based on the premise on thinking it was in fact japan who attacked the harbor. (which is a completely irrelevant debate to the atomic bomb.) The atomic bomb is one of the worlds biggest mistake ever. It's just like when guns were introduced, those who had the mass quantity of artillery held more, "power." Well this new falsified "power," is the power that ends as a whole. I'd much rather appear weak, than to risk the outcome of, "M.A.D." I Agree with you though that it was the end of the beginning. The only thing now though, is that we will inevitably procure something more deadly and reincarnate the next ended beginning. The end in the world. It's a ripple affect, the pebble is power. The first ripple being Spears, bows, arrows, etc. Then to swords, then to guns, and so on. We need to slow our power hungry roll, before we reach that last ripple. (Leave them alone.)

-----SORRY IF I WASN'T SUPPOSE TO INPUT ON A CLASS DEBATE, i was interested-------

The Japanese could not have fought for much longer, and most knew that they had lost. Plus, the lack of proportionality between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima caused the United States to lose their moral authority.

"...a considerable portion of the Japanese population now consider absolute military defeat to be probable." (Report from Combined British-American Intelligence Committee to the Combined Chiefs of Staff, July 8, 1945)

"We have great moral superiority through being the victim of her first sneak attack..." (Memorandum from Secretary of War to President Truman, July 2, 1945)

The number of American deaths at Pearl Harbor was 2,500. (History.com)

At Hiroshima alone, there were 90,000 to 120,000 deaths from the initial hit and the aftermath of the atomic bomb. ("Children of the Atomic Bomb" UCLA.com)

By trying to stop a war acting violent against Japan, makes is unnecessary to bomb Japan back after the Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1943.

"An international agreement could be achieved if America could say to the world, "you see that sort of weapon we had but did not use"".(Memorandum, also known as..doc)

Are these people Japanese? What does a family from Cleveland in 2007 have to do with anything? There are 4.3 billion people in Asia! this isn't an argument.

You were right to quote that, but your following conclusion isn't concrete due to it. True, no compromise would end the conflict. Yes victory is a definitely an achievement to those who take initiative. That doesn't mean there was only one solution, it also doesn't indicate whether or not a greater victory was about. "When the predator corners the prey, sometimes the prey bites back." America's logic was to avoid that bite and bomb them in the corner. Why not get them into the corner, and maintain them within it.

Although a nuclear demonstration would not kill as many people as Option 3, a staged explosion would make the United States seem very aggressive.

Memorandum from the Secretary of War:

"We have great moral superiority through being the victim."

This quote is essentially saying that because the U.S. was attacked first, we have the moral upper hand, and this will be taken away if the country doesn't act carefully. A nuclear demonstration would be world news that gives an image of the United States being threatening and aggressive.

"American prisoners of war in Japan were dying of starvation, Americans wanted a quick end to the war with a minimal loss of Americans lives"(from the "July 1945: The Moment of Decision).

"Have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history, on bomb of which could destroy a whole city"(From "Memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson to President Truman, April 25,1945).

Is peace a reality or a fantasy? The bomb was necessary because of what the Japanese did to the United States on December 7, 1941. We had done nothing to them so explain to me why we should offer peace. " No compromise can end this conflict.. only total victory..." (President Roosevelt, January 6, 1942)

"we have great superiority through being the victim of her first sneak attack."

option 3, to bomb japan directly, fulfills all your requirements and more Siana; it saves American lives! According to the army air force publication, July 1945, "The entire population of Japan is a proper Military target... THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN. We are making war and making it in the all-out fashion which saves american lives, shortens the agony which war is , and brings out an enduring peace.. in the shortest amount of time." (Army air force publication, July 1945)

i agree because war leads to money lost and lives lost too

While both the United States and Japan were ruthlessly fighting, the fact is the US overstepped their bounds and violated major rules of warfare by dropping not only one, but two atomic bombs. About.com says that only 2,335 people were killed on the attack at Pearl Harbor. The paper titled "Effects of the Bomb" tells us that in the first second of impact, the atomic bomb killed 80,000 to 100,000 people. Atomic Archive says that an estimated 135,000 people were killed at Hiroshima and 64,000 at Nagasaki. Clearly, the number of people Japan killed was much smaller than the number of people that Americans killed. In other words, the punishment didn't fit the crime.

According to Henry Stimson, June 1945, "Failure to make a military demonstration (Dropping it on a city) of the new bombs may make the war longer and more expensive in human lives..." therefore intending to scare them would have ended in many more American and Japanese lives that it did.

"Failure to make a military demonstration of the new bombs may make the war longer and expensive in humans lives..." Letter from Author Compton to Secretary of war Henry Stim son,June 15,1945.

"This is a war of extermination the Japanese militarists have made it that way."

I agree, The bombing of Japan was completely necessary and solved hundreds of american lives; we owned it to our troops and country to the end the war as quickly as possible

Americans believe in liberty, justice, and honor. So how is it honorable to sink down to the Japanese's level?

Ending the war will not guarantee the battle is done. "[The Japanese will continue the war until every man-perhaps every women and child lies face downward on the battlefield."

There is a more peaceful way to end the war, Option #2. It would scare the weary Japanese into submission, without casualties on either sides.

"...strategic bombing,...has already rendered millions homeless and has destroyed from 25 to 50 percent of the built-up area of Japan..." (report from Combined British-American Intelligence Commitee to the combined Chiefs of staff, July 8, 1945)

"Since then [the bombing], thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs." (http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate: BombingHiroshimaandNagasaki)

By doing a demonstration we won't hurt anybody when doing it in a deserted island in the Pacific Ocean. "the United States should demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb to the world by staging an explosion on a deserted island."(Take responsibility for a new era)

There is no text based evidence for your claim. "...no Japanese leader can dare accuse us immoral behavior." This was said by the person who said this.

'The average cost of an atomic bomb during the World War II era: $5,000,000,000" -www.ushistory.org

"Number of of deaths sustained worldwide during WWII 72 million"-

http://www.statisticbrain.com/world-war-ii-statistics

Do you have any Text based evidence to support that Jessica?

What if Japan didn't honor the "peace treaty" and later on came back to attack the U.S without warning AGAIN...

If we are using a bomb on Hiroshima, then no one will be hurt because it's a deserted island that is why we need to use the bomb on a place where no one lives and where no one can be hurt, but in order for us to get the message across, we need to show Japan who's boss which makes us look better too. It states in the, "Memorandum, also known as the Frank report," says, "The best possible atmosphere for the achievement of an international agreement could be achieved of an international agreement could be achieved if America could say to the world, 'you see that sort of weapon that we did not use.'

"The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development." The money that was used to build it wouldn't have to have been used if they found peaceful ways to end it

If the Japanese were ready to surrender then why was the government teaching the women and children to attack the U.S soldiers?

I agree that we could have just waited for Japan's surrender, but it would have cost thousands of lives more. A demonstration of the nuke would have ended the war along with the bloodshed quickly.

Demonstrating the power of the bomb would have not only been a waste, considering the huge financial investment into the bomb, but it also would have spurred other countries to start building their own nuclear programs.

"Average cost per atomic device/bomb: $5 billion" (Debate on the pros and cons of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan)

By 1949, the Soviet Union had exploded and tested its first atomic bomb. (The Cold War Museum)

Like you said, "would've made the bomb unnecessary." What if we didn't bomb them ? What would of happened to the US? Your claim does not have evidence.

Can you support this with evidence? I sound like Mr. Sturr right now.

According to Henry Stimson, June 1945, "Failure to make a military demonstration (Dropping it on a city) of the new bombs may make the war longer and more expensive in human lives..." therefore intending to scare them would have ended in many more American and Japanese lives that it did.

Staging an atomic bomb would be more threatening to everyone else, if anything. It would be just as bad as actually bombing Japan, because they were weak at the time, and already defeated.

"The United States must now step forward and assure the Japanese that we do not intend to put their emperor on trial as a war criminal."- Options in Brief

"Average cost per atomic device/bomb: $5 billion" (Debate on the pros and cons of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan)

By 1949, the Soviet Union had exploded and tested its first atomic bomb. (The Cold War Museum) So why the FREAK.. would we waste that much money on a scare tactic that may not work. Plus it could just encourage the Japanese to make one of there own.

Although staging an atomic bomb would not harm anyone, theoretically, it is still a negative option. According to Memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson to President Truman, July 2, 1945, "We have a great moral superiority through being the victim of her first sneak attack." Since the United States attacked first, we were ahead and above in power. That superiority would be revoked if we show ourselves to be aggressive; it would give the U.S. a negative image.

The Japanese should have thought of fact that they had no allies when bombing Pearl harbor.The Japanese did not think about "immoral" when they made many American soldiers march to death and starve them and torture them.

"In the light of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the "Bataan Death," and the torture and execution of Allied prisoners, no Japanese leader can dare accuse us of immoral behavior." Said by a legitimate source

Staging an atomic bomb would simply threaten the rest of the world, and be as harmful as an actual bombing on Japan, while Japan was also already struggling and weak.

"The two cities were of limited military value..." - Debate on pros and cons

It was necessary, in able to demonstrate to the Japanese who they are against. " Without a military demonstration it may be impossible to impress the world with the need for national sacrifices in order to gain lasting security."

In 1944, two years after your President Roosevelt quote, the President retracts this statement by staying "...from time to time there will have to be exceptions not to the surrender principle but to the application of it in different cases." (Letter from President Roosevelt to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, April 5, 1944) Essentially, President Roosevelt said that the way Japan will surrender may be more of a compromise than originally thought.

Theres no significant evidence that the Japanese would have surrendered if the bomb was not dropped. That is just what everybody was hoping for.

The Japanese didn't kill as many Americans as the Americas killed Japanese.

"The production of nuclear weapons has polluted vast amounts of soil and water at hundreds of nuclear weapons facilities all over the world. Many of the substances released, including plutonium, uranium, strontium, cesium, benzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury and cyanide, are carcinogenic and/or mutagenic and remain hazardous for thousands, some for hundreds of thousands, of years." - (http://www.motherearth.org/nuke/begin2.php)

" Hiroshima Nagasaki

Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000

Dead 66,000 39,000

Injured 69,000 25,000

Total Casualties 135,000 64,000" - (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml)

"When a nuclear weapon explodes in the air, the surrounding air is subjected to great heat, followed by relatively rapid cooling. These conditions are ideal for the production of tremendous amounts of nitric oxides. These oxides are carried into the upper atmosphere, where they reduce the concentration of protective ozone. Ozone is necessary to block harmful ultraviolet radiation from reaching the Earth's surface...

The nitric oxides produced by the weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere by as much as 30 to 70 percent. Such a depletion might produce changes in the Earth's climate, and would allow more ultraviolet radiation from the sun through the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth, where it could produce dangerous burns and a variety of potentially dangerous ecological effects.It has been estimated that as much as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear explosive power." - (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects22.shtml)

We were destroying not only thousands of lives but billions.

"Even minor problems of ozone depletion can have major effects. Every time even a small amount of the ozone layer is lost, more ultraviolet light from the sun can reach the Earth.

Every time 1% of the ozone layer is depleted, 2% more UV-B is able to reach the surface of the planet. UV-B increase is one of the most harmful consequences of ozone depletion because it can cause skin cancer.

The increased cancer levels caused by exposure to this ultraviolet light could be enormous. The EPA estimates that 60 million Americans born by the year 2075 will get skin cancer because of ozone depletion. About one million of these people will die."- (http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Environmental Problems/ozonedepletion-effects.html)

Excellent claim, God, but I need to see solid primary source evidence that supports your position for you to earn an A.

You cannot stop an entire country by scaring them especially when this country is under the code of Bushido.

weren't the men on pearl harbor innocent? That would be a waist of money just to have a preview of the bombing.

Well what's the proper way to "scare" a country? Without them attacking back...

Once Japan sees the power of the atomic bomb on a deserted island, they will be sure to surrender."Dr. Oppenheimer stated that the visual effect of an atomic bomb would be tremendous."

Which is why we shouldn't even threaten them. At the time, Americans didn't know how powerful the bomb was so the blast or radiation could even accidentally kill people.

Justina nobody likes to live in fear, so if everyone was able to see what Americans are capable of then they probably would have wanted to mimic the nuclear bomb. Then people like the Arabs would have had a more powerful weapon on 9-11. So if clouds were risen from the darkness it would only let out chaos if we showed everybody what America was "capable of."

Japanese not japs Robert stop being racists dont forget to cite dude

The japanese will continue to fight until every man perhaps woman and child lie face downward on the battlefield.

Using the atomic bomb on japanese cities is the surest most effective way to prevent further american casualties.

Mr. Wade This shouldn't have been posted because it is uncalled for to create a claim of destruction towards a race with no evidence to back up why this should happen.