Starving millions to death would be targeting civilians since the Military would confiscate the food that existed.Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".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.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..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.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
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
purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"