“To be fair, I doubt JC cared about Jap casualties”
Do you like putting words in my mouth?
Well, I do have a question for you.
Do you care about Japanese casualties?
As I have said, I have followed this very interesting thread. Your posts in particular, are very intriguing. In one post you indicated that a blockade would not preclude naval and air attacks. Would that not have ultimately caused more death to civilians in the long run? From what I have read, the carpet bombing of Tokyo was devastating.
And would not extending the war in such a manner increased Allied forces deaths as well?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth but I ask one sincere question...is your point of contention that there was more than one way to end the war? No matter how inefficient it may have been?
You're right, you said you didn't care that we dropped the bomb, you only cared that there are those that consider it the only options (I’m opposed to the a historical nonsense that the bomb was ok because there were no other viable options. ). By your support for a blockade, I should have known that you don't give a shit about casualties, Jap or allied because that is what the blockade would have produced.
By your own estimate (Well, that’s the question isn’t it? How long could they have lasted in 1945? I don’t think they would have been able to hold out through the winter.) Japan being in the N hemisphere, means we would have faced at least 7 more months of war, considering an early spring and the gov't of Japan caving under the blockade, that is 196000 more US dead following the average dead in the week after Nagasaki before surrender, and untold hundreds of thousand dead Japs due to starvation and all the POWs.
“To be fair, I doubt JC cared about Jap casualties”
Right again, you obvious don't give a shit about casualties at all, Allied or Jap. At least you are honest, I guess as a Catholic it is OK depending on the side you're on.