Kept sinking their merchant marine fleet go ahead with operation Starvation. Continue bombing military targets—wage war. They would eventually run out of food and supplies.
The first ones to run out of food and supplies would have been the civilian population.
Your approach would have killed the entire Japanese civilian population slowly and gradually, rather than a million or two, quickly.
Some humanitarian you are.
I seriously doubt the Japanese vision of “peace” would have been cessation of hostilities, return of troops from the occupied territories, disarmament, and acceptance of an occupying force.
That would have been humiliating, and I suspect even you would admit that the Japanese, especially of that era, would prefer death to dishonor.
Their view of “peace” would have been more of a ceasefire, in which the American stopped bombing them and sinking their ships, they kept their occupied territories and their armaments.
Little Boy and Fat Man saved the lives of Tens. Of. Millions. of Japanese.
Even after being nuked twice, there was still a faction within the Japanese army that attempted a coup to prevent the emperor’s planned surrender.
The difference is blockading is allowable under the Geneva convention. As long as the intent isnt genocide, which it wouldn’t be.
Also as far as calling/suggesting me inhumane that is laughable. You endorse burning and radiating civilians—children and women alive …not I.
Blocking off food shipments puts the ownership of the deaths of Japanese civilians on THEM not us. Can’t you see the difference?
You are just postulating your opinion they would not have disarmed or given up territory. Likely they would have accepted surrender with keeping their emperor, Korea and partial disarmament. We will never know but as they in fact did seek peace terms before much of ye mass fire bombing s and nuclear attacks. This does support my theory.