Mr. Sturr's Honors Atomic Bomb Debate
Mr. Sturr's Atomic Bomb Debate -- Honors U.S. History
Option 1: Make this a time for peace. Japan is defeated. Don't use the bomb.
Option 2: Act responsibly. Demonstate the power of the bomb. If Japan doesn't surrender, they are the immoral ones. We must lead by example.
Option 3: Push ahead to final victory. Fascism must end. Too many American lives have been lost. The bomb will save American lives.
Grading Scale:
A: Student has clear claim and provides facts and evidence in counterclaims and rebuttals. Student speaks almost exclusively from fact than from opinion. Student is effective at creating more debate with their counterclaim and rebuttals. Student consistently speaks with outside independent research. Student tone and language is appropriate and respectful.
B: Student has clear claim and provides facts and evidence in counterclaims and rebuttals. Student speaks more from fact than from opinion. Student is effective at creating more debate with their counterclaim and rebuttals. Student tone and language is appropriate and respectful.
C: Student has clear claim and provides opinion in counterclaims and rebuttals. Student speaks more from opinion than from facts. Student tone and language is appropriate and respectful.
F: Student has clear claim and provides only opinion in counterclaims and rebuttals. Student tone and language is appropriate and respectful.
Resources:
http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Bombing_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
http://www.endusmilitarism.org/a-bombings-arguments_pro_and_con-wikipedia.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4724793.stm
5
points
3
points
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 started the war with the attack on Pearl Harbor and wouldn't give up after numerous attacks, therefore dropping the Atomic Bomb on both Nagasaki and Hiroshima was necessary as we were defending ourselves. "... This is a war of extermination. The Japanese militarist have made it that way." (Published in 1943 by associated press corespondent Russell Brines). Also, "No compromise can end [this] conflict..." ( State of the union address by President Roosevelt, January 6, 1942). 2
points
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) 1
point
There were no Civilians in Japan anymore, they were training them to fight therefore they became troops. "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) 1
point
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) 3
points
1
point
"No compromise can end this conflict... only total victory can reward the champions of tolerance..." Because we were unable to come to a compromise with the Japanese, and the code of Bushido says that they will continue the war until every man- perhaps every woman and child- lies face down on the imperialist battlefield, bombing Japan was our best option because regardless weather we bomb them or not, they will continue to fight and thus create even more casualties. BOOM! 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. 2
points
1
point
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. 1
point
Without bombing japan or by don't showing a demonstration of the power of the atomic bomb, Japan can be able to reenter war and make another attack like the one in Harbor. "A demonstration explosion over Tokyo Harbor would have convinced Japan's leader to quit without killing many people(Debate on the Pros and Cons of Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan) 1
point
"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). 2
points
2
points
The atomic bomb is by far one of the most destructive weapons. In fact, upon the first second of impact, the atomic bomb can kill 80,000-100,000 people. The United States should never be responsible for this type of destruction, therefore the atomic bombings of Japan should never have taken place, especially because the bomb not only killed people instantly, but for years to come. Effects of the Bomb: "At 8:15 am, Little Boy exploded instantly killing 80,000-100,000 people..." Effects of the Bomb: "Two years after the bombing plants growing at ground zero presaged the frightening genetic aberrations in humans that were to come...For decades, abnormally high amounts of cancer, birth defects, and tumors haunted victims." 2
points
Lets make this a time for peace; there is always an alternative that does not end in casualties of innocent people that were already going to surrender. "At 8:15 am a little boy exploded instantly killing 80,000-140,000 people" ("The Story of Hiroshima." The Bomb Explodes. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.) 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) 1
point
We should offer peace because peace doesn't involve killing innocent civilians. It is not necessary to obliterate people in order get their surrender and in many cases unconditional surrender is not necessary in order for peace to happen. "...from time to time there will have to be exceptions not to the surrender principle but to the application of it in specific cases..." (Letter from President Roosevelt to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, April 5, 1944) 1
point
1
point
1
point
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) 1
point
An invasion of japan would have cause casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the tool of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Considering that the war has already resulted in more the 50 million deaths world wide the use of an atomic bomb hardly represents an escalation in the level of violence.The Japanese army And even its civilians will continue to fight barbarically with the aim of killing as many Americans as possible. 2
points
It was important for everyone to move on and begin to rebuild the world to become a peaceful place during the last days of the war; therefore, the bombing of Japan was not necessary. Text based evidence: "Japan has no allies. Her navy is nearly destroyed and she is... terribly vulnerable." -Memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson to President Truman, July 2, 1945. "At 8:15 a.m., Little Boy exploded, instantly killing 80,000-140,000 people..." - "Effects of the Bomb." 2
points
1
point
2
points
The atomic bombing on Japan was necessary because the U.S. needed to end the war as fast as possible. As it says in the Army Air Force publication, July 1945; "We intend to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever he or she is, in the greatest possible numbers, in the shortest possible time." Its true, it doesn't really matter who we kill in the process, as long as the job gets done and the war is ended. And it has to be done as soon as possible, so why not just send an atomic bomb their way! In the Minutes of the Interim Committee, June 1, 1945; they pretty much say the same thing. "The present view of the [Interim] Committee was that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible." Again this is true because we should do whatever it takes to end the war, thus sending an atomic bomb to kill thousands, maybe even millions! 3
points
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. I got this quote from about.com''The Japanese were tired of negotiations with the United States. They wanted to continue their expansion within Asia but the United States had placed an extremely restrictive embargo on Japan in the hopes of curbing Japan's aggression." Ellyn one life is not important than the other. That begin said the Japanese knew what they were getting into when they took the time to plan out how they were going to get the U.S to enter the war, by bombing Pearl Harbor. If both the U.S and Japanese were fighting ruthlessly than neither side cared what happen to the other. So you can not put blame on just the U.S side. When Japan started the Bataan Death March that over stepped the boundaries, when Japan were doing the Kamikazes thing, sinking the U.S ships causing U.S troops to starve and not have the proper equipment that was overstepping boundaries, the U.S only responded the best they knew how by ending the war because the Japanese government obviously did not show any mercy so why should the U.S. 3
points
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. 2
points
2
points
Yes we do believe in Honor, but we also believe in justice therefore we had the right to defend our country and come back at them. They would never give up and even killed some of our soldiers brutally. They deserved to die and eveyone on that country did as wel, "The entire population of Japan is a proper military target... There are no civillians in Japan." (Army Air Force Publication July 1945) The U.S does believe in all those things. It wasn't like we just bombed them. At first we tried to negotiate, but they were not happy, so what did they do they bombed Pearl Harbor. The U.S needed just, they needed to show the Japanese, the world that justice will prevail. We showed Honor, liberty, and when it was time we faced Japan with Justice. 4
points
1
point
1
point
Just because we scare them with a demonstration, doesn't mean they'll stayed scared forever. Plus, do you know how much money it takes to build an atomic bomb!? Its a waste to spend all that money to create an atomic bomb and only use it to scare the Japanese. We might as well just send the bomb their way and wipe them out, end the war quickly! "Little Boy" was created using uranium-235, a radioactive isotope of uranium. This uranium-235 atomic bomb, a product of $2 billion of research.." This information was found on about.com. There was no guarantee that the Japanese would have surrendered if the U.S showed them what they were working with. And that would have been 2 billion dollars down the drain. "...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/ 1
point
1
point
3
points
'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"- 0
points
5 million is not alot to create world peace even for a little while. Also, More deaths would have been caused if we had waited for their surrender; the deaths would have been less if we had dropped the bomb on a deserted island and had the japanese watch what would happen if they didn't surrender. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
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.' 1
point
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. 1
point
0
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
I personally agree with option 1 because the Japanese were already about to give up anyways. A report from Combined British-American Intelligence Committee to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on July 8, 1945, said, "We believe that a considerable portion of the Japanese population now consider absolute military defeat to be probable." And from the Memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson to President Truman on July 2, 1945, said, "Japan has no allies. Her navy is nearly destroyed and she is vulnerable to a surface and underwater blockade which can deprive her to sufficient food and supplies for her population." This justifies the fact that the Japanese knew they didn't have anything to fight for or with so they were giving up, which made it unnecessary to drop the atomic bombs. 1
point
1
point
2
points
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) 2
points
1
point
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. 1
point
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. 1
point
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. 1
point
I believe option 2 is the best bet, cause it shows more regard to human lives by only demonstrating the power of the bomb, and letting Japan decide if they want to carry on fighting and face massive destruction and loss of civilians, or back down. Evidence points in the direction of Japan surrendering anyway, but there's no way to be sure. So, this option is the best of both worlds, if they were gonna back down anyway, no one dies, if they were planning on carrying on it gives them good reason not to, and if they decide to fight even after the demonstration of the bomb, then that's their problem. 1
point
Because Japan would have surrendered anyway, and because the use of nuclear weapons is immoral in any situation, the atomic bombing of Japan was not necessary. "Japan has no allies. Her navy is nearly destroyed..." (Memorandum from Secretary of War to President Truman, July 2,1945) "Radiation-induced cancers will affect many, often over twenty years later." ("The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament) "Nuclear weapons cause severe damage to the climate and environment on a scale incomparable to any other weapon" ("The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament) 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 1
point
1
point
"There were no Civilians in Japan anymore, they were training them to fight therefore they became troops. "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) 1
point
*There were no Civilians in Japan anymore, they were training them to fight therefore they became troops. "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) 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
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. 1
point
1
point
Because of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese the atomic bombing was necessary. "This is a war of extermination. The Japanese Militarist have made it that way "-Russell Brines Until They Eat Stones Therefore, "The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; they it be used on a war plant surrounded by homes; and that it be used without prior warning"- minutes of the Interim Committee, June 1,1945 There is no significant evidence that Japan even surrendered because of the bomb. "In a recently released Harvard University Press volume drawing upon the latest Japanese sources, for instance, Professor Tsuyohsi Hasegawa concludes that the traditional myth cannot be supported by historical facts." (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/ 1
point
"It was a blinding flash, everything around me turned sheer-white. The ring of light, like a halo around the moon shone and spread like a rainbow. The next moment, a big column of flame reached up to the sky and detonated like a volcanic explosion in the air. It was a sight no words can describe." (Quote from a survivor of the Hiroshima bomb)
Imagine being this survivor and knowing that you are one of the few to survive the Atomic Bomb that has killed nearly every one you know and love, your mother, your father, your cousin, your grandma, and your sister, all dead. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
"Radiation released from each step in the nuclear weapons production cycle cause cancer, congenital defects, mental retardation, immune destruction, cancer, stillbirths and other health problems. Similar syndromes have been observed among the workers exposed to radiation in nuclear power plants in Japan, or in down-winders living in the irradiated zones near Hanford, and in the Chernobyl children, as well as the areas close to the nuclear test sites." (http://www.motherearth.org/nuke) This is horrible and should not have happened and should never have to happen to anyone. This could have been avoided. 1
point
1
point
"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/ 1
point
1
point
"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/ 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/ 3
points
3
points
5
points
1
point
3
points
1
point
0
points
In option 2 I believe that we can address this in a whole different manner where Japanese people wont be killed, countries will be warned about what America is capable of, and peace will be risen from the clouds of darkness. It states in the, "From the Historical Record," it says, "Within four months we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known to mankind." 1
point
And by showing them what we can do and what might happen to them can potentially tear them apart and prove to them that we are not ones to mess with. It says on the, "Debate On The Pros and Cons of Dropping The Atomic Bomb On Japan," states, "Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger," which shows them that we will keep on advancing and that they will never reach up to are level because we will most likely win with all the technology we have that they don't! 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." -2
points
5
points
2
points
1
point
3
points
|