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.
“Actually, it doesn’t. Tell me what you are saying.”
Japan inflicted 20 million plus civilian casulties on China in the course of the war. China was our ally. They did not provoke Japan and were invaded.
Japan lost about 2 million, atomic bombs included when the US and the allies fought back. I do not believe that the losses of a blockade for 5-6 months would come anywhere close to tipping the balance between civilian and combatant casulties, let alone matching up with the civilian casulties the Japanese inflicted on China.
“So did you want Japan destroyed because of the damage to China?”
No. I am simply saying that blockade was an option, an inferior one, for several reasons, to the dropping of the atomic bomb.
I am only objecting to the OP here because the OP insisted that the only option for victory over Japan was the atomic bomb. I disagree. There were other, inferior options including Coronet and Olympic. I see blockade as the middle option, preferable to Coronet and Olympic but less so than the dropping of the Atomic bomb.