“Do you care about Japanese casualties?”
Yes I do. I’m arguing that there were other options that would have succeeded in winning the war with Japan. I believe that while the atomic bomb was the best option, it was not the only option.
“Would that not have ultimately caused more death to civilians in the long run?”
Yes, it would have, even with a blockade and with naval and air attacks, the casulty ratio in Japan would not even approach the casulties Japan inflicted on China. The only two belligerants with positive ratios of civilian deaths to combantant deaths were Japan and Germany, which should tell you everything you need to know about the second world war.
“No matter how inefficient it may have been?”
I believe Japan would have surrendered after the winter, probably in February or March of 1946, had the blockade been used. I do not believe that Russia would have had sufficient forces to succeed in a landing in Hokkaido, given logistics and the presence of Japanese forces in China and Korea.
In this thread, I often have to read your posts several times. Sometimes the written word doesn’t convey the thought. But FRiend, you are confusing me on several issues.
“The atomic option was the best...a blockade with naval and air attacks would not even approach the casualties inflicted by Japan to the Chinese.” Different subject all together...and should we have let the Japanese inflict those casualties on the US?
“Civilian deaths with positive ratios to combatant were Japan and Germany..that should tell you all you need to know about WWII.” Actually, it doesn’t. Tell me what you are saying.
You think Japan would have surrendered in Feb or March. I guess that maybe true. There would have been no population, military or land to live on. Of course, the Allies would have lost as well.
So did you want Japan destroyed because of the damage to China? I am truly trying to understand.