0th anniversary of VJ Day: Thank the atomic bomb for saving millions of lives

[Rotagilla]

Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.

Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm

Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".

purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"

Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?

Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

 

[Camp]

Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".

purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"

Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?

Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?

 

[Rotagilla]

purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"

You did not answer the question.
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son...if you need to declare "victory" to soothe your ego, go ahead.

You're just making up numbers and fantasy scenarios again and you want ME to debunk them.
I already told you twice that won't work here. You can have your fantasies end however you like..If nuking civilians is acceptable to you, fine...go with it.

..I've made all my points and supported them...

 

[M14 Shooter]

purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"

Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?

Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?

OMFG!! NUKES!!!

 

[Rotagilla]

purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"

Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?

Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?

There is no evasion...you apparently haven't read the whole thread...read back and find what I said about other options.

But for now, since obviously you can't keep pace with the discussion or make a meaningful, coherent contribution, perhaps you should just excuse yourself from it.

I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread and make an effort to be sensible and polite before commenting so we can avoid mundane repetition.

I am not going to continue to talk with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.
At this point, it's clear you do not possess the necessary intellect to post here and should probably go elsewhere.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You did not answer the question.
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son

Indeed there is. You know you cannot defend your position and so you refuse to soundly address a question put directly it.
That is, you're running away from the conversation.
Disagree?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

 

[Rotagilla]

Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?

Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?

OMFG!! NUKES!!!

brilliant rebuttal...you're really making strong, mature points here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?

OMFG!! NUKES!!!

brilliant rebuttal...you're really making strong, mature points here.

Your position is built on nothing more that "OMFG! NUKES!!!"
In that, it defeats itself.

 

[Rotagilla]

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son

Indeed there is. You know you cannot defend your position and so you refuse to soundly address a question put directly it.
That is, you're running away from the conversation.
Disagree?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

Last time I'm going to explain this to you....if you equate blockading an island to cut off war materials from them with nuking civilians, you're just too unhinged to speak reasonably with.

you can declare "victory" now....

LMAO..

 

[Rotagilla]

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?

OMFG!! NUKES!!!

brilliant rebuttal...you're really making strong, mature points here.

Your position is built on nothing more that "OMFG! NUKES!!!"
In that, it defeats itself.

no...those are your words..I never said any of that...you are so wrapped up in your introspective fantasy world that you have lost touch with reality now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son

Indeed there is. You know you cannot defend your position and so you refuse to soundly address a question put directly it.
That is, you're running away from the conversation.
Disagree?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

Last time I'm going to explain this to you

You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.

 

[Rotagilla]

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son

Indeed there is. You know you cannot defend your position and so you refuse to soundly address a question put directly it.
That is, you're running away from the conversation.
Disagree?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

Last time I'm going to explain this to you

You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.
We had completely defeated them militarily....a few months of strict blockades and they'd be at the end of their rope and have to ask for peace.

There is no honor in purposely targeting civilians with nuclear weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son

Indeed there is. You know you cannot defend your position and so you refuse to soundly address a question put directly it.
That is, you're running away from the conversation.
Disagree?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

Last time I'm going to explain this to you

You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said you would.

 

[Camp]

Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?

Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?

There is no evasion...you apparently haven't read the whole thread...read back and find what I said about other options.

But for now, since obviously you can't keep pace with the discussion or make a meaningful, coherent contribution, perhaps you should just excuse yourself from it.

I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread and make an effort to be sensible and polite before commenting so we can avoid mundane repetition.

I am not going to continue to talk with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.
At this point, it's clear you do not possess the necessary intellect to post here and should probably go elsewhere.

I am paying attention just fine. You are just trying to deflect and evade having to make your comments about a blockade and starving the Japanese into surrender, which you claim they were trying to do or at least willing to do. You ideas get shot down because you can not back up your claims. Unlike you, I have provided detailed factual information from two very objective links to portray an accurate assessment of the situation in Japan leading up to the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One link shows the actual records from MacArthur giving great detail about the weapons and supplies collected by American occupation forces after the surrender. It gives an extremely accurate account and record of the Japanese preparedness for an American invasion. The other link provides a history of the bombing campaign leading up the the atomic bombings. Included are casualty figures from the 67 cities firebombed and that failed to bring about a peace or surrender request.

 

[Rotagilla]

There is no concession, son

Indeed there is. You know you cannot defend your position and so you refuse to soundly address a question put directly it.
That is, you're running away from the conversation.
Disagree?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

Last time I'm going to explain this to you

You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said yo would.

anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous "summary" or revisions.
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons.
You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.
That is the difference of opinion we have.

Indeed so :
I live in reality, you, in fantasy.
Thank you for making that clear.

 

[Rotagilla]

Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.

I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused

How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?

There is no evasion...you apparently haven't read the whole thread...read back and find what I said about other options.

But for now, since obviously you can't keep pace with the discussion or make a meaningful, coherent contribution, perhaps you should just excuse yourself from it.

I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread and make an effort to be sensible and polite before commenting so we can avoid mundane repetition.

I am not going to continue to talk with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.
At this point, it's clear you do not possess the necessary intellect to post here and should probably go elsewhere.

I am paying attention just fine. You are just trying to deflect and evade having to make your comments about a blockade and starving the Japanese into surrender, which you claim they were trying to do or at least willing to do. You ideas get shot down because you can not back up your claims. Unlike you, I have provided detailed factual information from two very objective links to portray an accurate assessment of the situation in Japan leading up to the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One link shows the actual records from MacArthur giving great detail about the weapons and supplies collected by American occupation forces after the surrender. It gives an extremely accurate account and record of the Japanese preparedness for an American invasion. The other link provides a history of the bombing campaign leading up the the atomic bombings. Included are casualty figures from the 67 cities firebombed and that failed to bring about a peace or surrender request.

how can an island nation with no resources, no army, navy or air force be a "threat"?
LMAO...

I don't care if they had 10 billion rifles...they live on an island...they aren't going anywhere and we could control everything that entered their ports.

 

[Rotagilla]

I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons.
You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.
That is the difference of opinion we have.

Indeed so :
I live in reality, you, in fantasy.
Thank you for making that clear.

no..you're wrong..again...
LMAO..we hung german soldiers and officers for war crimes against civilians..we hung japanese soldiers and officers for war crimes against civilians...
but we're 'murican, by god!...when we kill civilians it's "different" because we're "special".....LMAO..you guys are amusing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons.
You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.
That is the difference of opinion we have.

Indeed so :
I live in reality, you, in fantasy.
Thank you for making that clear.

no..you're wrong..again...

In fact, not in the slightest.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...

Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.

You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.

I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..

Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?

Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.

Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm

So in your mind it's ok to nuke civilians...
Well, ok.fine.....but what's curious is your desperate attempts to justify it by making up fantasy scenarios where our "only" option was nukes. The japs could not sustain any type of war effort with no resources and trapped on an island.

Hey..remember our island hopping campaign?..remember?..the whole point was to bypass certain places and let them wither on the vine as they couldn't be resupplied and had no means to make war.

Didn't we hang a bunch of german officers after the war for murdering civilians, too?...that was "different", though, right? LMAO...

Your proposed solution would have starved to death millions of civilians. That is not a guess or fantasy it is a fact. You claiming otherwise is a lie and ridiculous.