The Social Lounge Debates - First Rounds: Plutarch vs. Dilla Nevada *Plutarch Wins*

SionSion Posts: 18,390
edited January 2013 in The Social Lounge
Welcome to The Social Lounge Debates. In these debates you will judged based on 3 criteria - Content, Delivery and Fact. There is a word limit of 500 words per round, going over that will result in points being deducted. Additional rules are as follows: You have 3 rounds per debate and a time limit of 24 hours per round to respond. Each debate should take no longer than 3-5 days. If you are to vote please wait until the END of the debate to cast your vote. For spectators, please do not attempt to derail or throw the debaters off topic. Doing so will result in your vote not counting and you may be jailed/banned until the entire tournament is finished.


Was the U.S. justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? Plutarch - Yes , Dilla Nevada - No

The Social Lounge Debates - First Rounds: Plutarch vs. Dilla Nevada

Sign in to vote!
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.

Replies

  • SionSion Posts: 18,390
    edited November 2012
    Plutarch
    Welcome to The Social Lounge Debates. In these debates you will judged based on 3 criteria - Content, Delivery and Fact. There is a word limit of 500 words per round, going over that will result in points being deducted. Additional rules are as follows: You have 3 rounds per debate and a time limit of 24 hours per round to respond. Each debate should take no longer than 3-5 days. If you are to vote please wait until the END of the debate to cast your vote. For spectators, please do not attempt to derail or throw the debaters off topic. Doing so will result in your vote not counting and you may be jailed/banned until the entire tournament is finished.


    Was the U.S. justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? Plutarch - Yes , PimpMVP - No
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,766
    edited November 2012
    Cool. I'm a bit busy and will be for the next three hours, but I should have my response by midnight EST.
  • SionSion Posts: 18,390
    Plutarch
    Take your time with it fam if you need an extra day no problem just let me know.
  • PimpMVPPimpMVP Posts: 6,197
    Yo, I'm just now seeing this. Sion, why didnt you inbox me sooner,b?

    Anyway, I'll post a response later in the day.
  • SionSion Posts: 18,390
    Plutarch
    PimpMVP wrote: »
    Yo, I'm just now seeing this. Sion, why didnt you inbox me sooner,b?

    Anyway, I'll post a response later in the day.

    My bad fam, I lost track of time.
  • I just randomly put Pimpmvp becasue I thought others already voted lol.

    Im the first
  • SionSion Posts: 18,390
    Plutarch
    Alright this debate has now been changed to @Plutarch vs. @Dilla Nevada

    Best of luck gentlemen.....
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,766
    Cool. It's been a busy couple of weeks, but I shouldn't have too much problem having time to do this.

    Dilla Nevada. Can't front, I like that name.
  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been one of the most debated issues since the bombing of these two cities. After going over facts of both towns, I came to these conclusions of why these two cities should had not been bombed:

    1. The PostDam Declaration did not mention the threat of a hydrogen bomb to the Japanese, meaning thousands and millions of innocent lives could have been prevented. More specifically at least if they mention it in the declaration warning, then at least Japan could had moved their first responders – Hiroshima lost over 90% of the doctors and 93% of the nurses which was in the area of the greatest damage- the downtown area. (Hiroshima. “U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)


    2. Had the U.S. waited a bit longer (and still ask for diplomatic means) and (found out if they could) that the Soviet troops (1.6 million in total) launched a surprise attack on Eastern Asia where the Japanese were occupying, that would had ended WW2, with maybe less casualties. Because the threat of Russia staring down Japan would be a big advantage psychologically – this is strenuously stated by the author of “Racing The Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan”, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa : “"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"”.

    3. FDR’s (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) death, was a huge factor. He really stressed diplomacy, and was on very good terms with Churchill, and strong enough to keep Stalin at bay but still counted him as an ally. Truman’s was not a president by any means. He was a politician put into that office by Kansas City political machine run by the KCMO mafioso and greater extent, “The Outfit” aka the Chicago Mob. (The Outfit , by Gus Russo). Which meant he was probably more worrying about scoring political points at home than really seeing what his options was, and probably pissed off Churchill, and Stalin could had viewed him as weak (by using the bombs when he didn’t have to).



    4. The bombing of Nagasaki should not happen at all. Another bombing was overkill, and on top of that Nagasaki wasn’t the primary choice for the second bombing, the town of Kokura, to the northeast of Nagasaki (between Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was the primary objective. (Sherwin & 2003, pp. 233–23.) Only because of cloud cover, that the order to bypass Kokura and bomb Nagasaki if there was clear skies given the opportunity, otherwise the bomb would had been dropped harmlessly out to sea.

    5. Lastly, there was still two other options (logical assumptions). You could had bombed Tokyo and taken out Emperor Hirohito and pretty much ended the war. Or you could had threaten to bombed Hiroshima but drop them out in sea but in clear view and psyched them out.
  • ^^Word count is 500, sorry I didn't do it sooner this afternoon...been pretty busy and shock at the events in Conn. today.
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,766
    1. A. Potsdam DID indirectly refer to the bomb when it warned that Japan would face “utter destruction” if it didn’t surrender. That’s a serious warning, but Japan still ignored it. Also, we mustn’t forget that the U.S. worked with Britain on the bomb and tested it in California. The USSR also knew about the bomb. So, it’s possible that Japan knew about it too but thought that the U.S. was bluffing.

    B. It’s likely that the U.S. didn’t mention the bomb for strategic purposes (i.e., to preserve a surprise attack). Letting Japan know would’ve just allowed them to plan ahead and minimize their damages to continue to fight an endless war. Did Japan warn the U.S. about its surprise Pearl Harbor attack?

    C. I think that warning Japan was altogether pointless for two reasons: 1. As I previously explained, Japan was too stubborn to surrender so easily. 2. Today, we can look in hindsight at how destructive the bomb was, but people in the 1940s didn’t have that luxury since a bomb of that magnitude had never been experienced. So how could Japan ever have realized the full extent of such a threat in the first place?

    2. Diplomacy was clearly not working. And the USSR only attacked Japan after/because of the Hiroshima bombing. During the war, the USSR and Japan agreed to peace, but the USSR wanted Japanese territory and invaded only when the opportunity presented itself after the bomb crippled Japan.

    3. Truman was controversial but effective, and thus won a second term. He was also moral. Unlike FDR, he took a firm stance against racism and desegregated the military. He saw the bomb as a necessary evil to prevent the worse evil of allowing more Americans to die. Truman himself said that the bomb saved half a million Americans. Churchill himself said that it saved half a million Brits.

    4. The second bombing wasn’t overkill. Here are two examples of just how stubborn Japan was:

    A. Immediately after the Hiroshima bombing, War Minister Korechika Anami said, “I am convinced that the Americans had only one bomb, after all.” Japan was clearly ready to continue to fight after the first bombing.

    B. The Emperor went so far as to say that he would’ve continued fighting if the terms of surrender meant that he had to give up his throne. Keep in mind that he said this after the second bombing, and keep in mind that the U.S. was ready to drop more bombs if necessary. The only reason why Japan agreed to surrender was because the U.S. allowed the Emperor to keep his throne and to evade war crime trials. Otherwise, we might still be fighting Japan today.

    5. The first option would’ve been 1. much more destructive and unethical to the point of severing American-Japanese relations indefinitely and 2. very difficult (otherwise the U.S. might’ve done so). The second option would’ve only made the U.S. lose their element of surprise and appear weak during total war.
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,766
    Damn, sorry about the wait heh. Last weekend was graduation.

    But my second round post is basically an entire counterpost to dilla's (name change?) first round post. And it's 500 words too.

    But that was an impressive opening. Making me work hard for it heh.
  • SionSion Posts: 18,390
    Plutarch
    Alright time to speed things up a bit. Dilla we need one more post from you and we'll conclude it otherwise I'm going to stop it here and based on what the poll results are Plutarch may advance.

    In the second rounds as judges we'll add our input, I figured things would go a bit faster but that wasn't the case LOLOL (I shoulda waited till after the holidays to start this SMH). It's all good tho I appreciate you guys for taking the time out of your days to do this.
This discussion has been closed.