6 ms·

What about a naval blockade? No need to land troops and war-fighting ability would be quickly crippled without fuel and food etc. Almost worked on the UK.

dba7dba 12y ago
Blockade? Japanese govt would've just watched their population die of starvation and still not surrender.
- rurounijones 12y ago
  I guess that is a [citation needed]. Definitely a possibility but something for the historians to debate I guess.
  - dba7dba 12y ago
    100,000 Japanese civilians died in one night of bombing. And the govt presses on, and 40,000 civilians died on Okinawa. Japan still refused to surrender. Not much better proof needed to show that Japanese leadership would've watched their population die of starvation over months and years.
    - rurounijones 12y ago
      A blockade, no fuel, no food, Russian invasion imminent unless surrender to the US. this is a big "What if" and I do not think we can say outcome A or B with any certainty.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      > Japan still refused to surrender. Japan had no capacity to attack anywhere anymore. All of its fleet had been sunk. What was the point of leveling the country to the ground, when the opponent is already KO and on its knees ?
      - adventured 12y ago
        The point was to neuter the Japanese imperial system, which had declared war on and attacked the US, aligned with the axis, and spent the previous decade butchering Asia. That required total capitulation and the abolition of their State Shintoism, not a mere agreement to cease hostilities. Given the vast genocide Japan had committed - given their fanaticism - there was also no way to know for sure that Japan would cease its war machine and territorial conquest aims, without invading and overseeing the dismantling of their system. After what Japan had done, were the allies supposed to just take Japan's word for it, that they were going to become peaceful and withdraw from mainland Asia permanently?
InTheArena 12y ago
The end result would have been the same - mass casualties among Japanese civilians. Was the firebombing and the atomic bomb much better then that? Hell yes.

dba7dba 12y ago

Blockade? Japanese govt would've just watched their population die of starvation and still not surrender.

rurounijones 12y ago
I guess that is a [citation needed]. Definitely a possibility but something for the historians to debate I guess.
- dba7dba 12y ago
  100,000 Japanese civilians died in one night of bombing. And the govt presses on, and 40,000 civilians died on Okinawa. Japan still refused to surrender. Not much better proof needed to show that Japanese leadership would've watched their population die of starvation over months and years.
  - rurounijones 12y ago
    A blockade, no fuel, no food, Russian invasion imminent unless surrender to the US. this is a big "What if" and I do not think we can say outcome A or B with any certainty.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > Japan still refused to surrender. Japan had no capacity to attack anywhere anymore. All of its fleet had been sunk. What was the point of leveling the country to the ground, when the opponent is already KO and on its knees ?
    - adventured 12y ago
      The point was to neuter the Japanese imperial system, which had declared war on and attacked the US, aligned with the axis, and spent the previous decade butchering Asia. That required total capitulation and the abolition of their State Shintoism, not a mere agreement to cease hostilities. Given the vast genocide Japan had committed - given their fanaticism - there was also no way to know for sure that Japan would cease its war machine and territorial conquest aims, without invading and overseeing the dismantling of their system. After what Japan had done, were the allies supposed to just take Japan's word for it, that they were going to become peaceful and withdraw from mainland Asia permanently?

InTheArena 12y ago

The end result would have been the same - mass casualties among Japanese civilians. Was the firebombing and the atomic bomb much better then that? Hell yes.