I’m no historian, and if anyone can refute the facts in this piece, please do — because the article seems to make the clear argument that the atomic bomb was inexcusable.
More than happy to refute this piece (because it's "facts", as you describe them are cherry-pick and manipulated to support the writer's conclusions).
Actually, it's easier to just post the
article that refuted them in 2005 and point out that the intelligence at the time of the bombing showed 1.) the Japanese officials seeking a ceasefire were "peace entrepreneurs" with absolutely no backing or authority to do what they were doing and 2.) the leadership that was actually controlling Japan was not only completely intransigent when it came to the possibility of a surrender (at least one that resulted in them being removed from power), and not only held that position until the Emperor intervened after Nagasaki got nuked, but then tried to stage a military coup to prevent the surrender from actually happening.
The Philippines Sea back in June of 1944 was decisive. The Japanese could not keep their hold on all the territory without airpower combined with sea power. The Philippines sea sank their remaining carrier planes and Leyte Gulf sank their remaining surface fleet.
The only thing the Japanese could do is dig in as they did at Okinawa. That was it. You’re telling me that the entire home island is going to resist a blockade for years? I don’t see it.