“That’s fine, now reason out how a blockade would work, even absent our continued air and naval attacks.”
I find it an odd tendency that whenever someone argues something that they don’t like, to insert conditions that make no sense whatsoever. Why must a blockade not include air and naval attacks in order to contain the Japanese?
“where the military and the political leadership eats, the rest of the population not so much”
The IJN would be foolish to do so. The military at that point could not save Japan. By starving the people, it would lead to their own destruction.
Contain them? That is the definition of a blockade, they aren't going anywhere. Air and naval attacks would continue to kill civilians, wasn't that the purpose of the bombs? But it is okay to kill them in another, less efficient way. The attacks risk our men when the blockade is supposed to be sufficient.
By starving the people, it would lead to their own destruction.
The IJN was done, it was the army running the show in the home islands, as for the destruction of the military leadership, it was assured in any case. I doubt the army plan for the use of civilians cared that they would be slaughtered by us. The army would have been fed, the Japanese civvies showed nothing but obedience to their masters.