“Not if you care about allied casualties, if that is part of the equation than it was the only one.”
Again, there were other viable options.
“Not hate at all, but the bomb use is a large part of the asinine argument”
So why muck the waters by making an even dumber argument?
“perpetuated by Catholics and assorted lefties”
Wow, I’m not sure I see the point here. Are you arguing that Eisenhower was a lefty and a Catholic.
“Yet a quick end to a war, lessening the human suffering and death is cast aside for a theory that hasn’t worked since siege warfare, and didn’t work in the WWII blockade of Germany and the subsequent undersea counter-blockade by the Germans.”
I am not arguing that the atomic bombs did not lessen human suffering. I am arguing that blockade was possible. Japan was already suffering from the effects of the blockade - as did Germany at the time.
Blockade does work. Churchill even stated how crucial it was to winning the war - that one did not supply the enemy crucial supplies.
“wouldn’t have worked in a timely manner”
Six months isn’t timely enough?
“the resulting death and misery resulting from one should appall a Christian.”
Defense of the innocent is a good cause for war. That the enemy should fall in a successful defense you do what you have to do to end the war.
“Six months isn’t timely enough?”
No it is not.
Let’s play pretend for a moment. For the moment, let’s pretend that you are a soldier fighting a battle that is dragging on needlessly and could well be killed.
Better yet, let’s pretend that one of your children is fighting a war that could be ended before their death.
Blockade was never a selected course of action because it couldn’t meet the strategic objectives, at best it was a supporting plan to be executed by the Navy. Proof of that is the war planners had already put in motion the plan for the invasion of the home islands. Logistic planning was already underway, troops were allocated and training. What other ‘viable options’ existed that met the strategic objectives?
“perpetuated by Catholics and assorted lefties” Wow, I’m not sure I see the point here. Are you arguing that Eisenhower was a lefty and a Catholic.
Not at all, just pointing out that the theory is supported by those groups. It hinders those nations that war reluctantly by removing effective weapons from use. It is also a form of ‘past-posting’ used against nation that are successful that seek to hamstring their offensive and defensive capabilities
Blockade does work. Churchill even stated how crucial it was to winning the war - that one did not supply the enemy crucial supplies.
Germany’s surface navy achieved no operational or strategic success in WWII. Its navy’s outstanding component were its U-boats. Germany had no successful merchant fleet either, certainly nothing like the Japanese Marus. Germany’s supply rested on the success or failure of its army in the field. While the Allies in the far east had success against the Jap merchant fleet the home islands were far from ‘blockaded’.
“wouldn’t have worked in a timely manner” Six months isn’t timely enough?
Not if you were a POW or one of the 7000 casualties suffered in the week preceding the surrender, besides this question has already been answered by the war planners. The invasion of Kyushu was laid on for Nov45. Four months after the bombs and the delay was due to the massive numbers of men, supplies and shipping needed. The surrender spared the Japs the three bombs projected to be completed in Oct45. The weapons changed the strategic landscape.