I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.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.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.
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!"
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 already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused