[GATOR NAVY]

Starvation was an even more critical factor. It was known (form the same code intercepts that you cite) that Japanese food shortages were crippling the country. SO were shortages of critical materials (iron ore, brass, oil, bauxite, aluminum, etc, etc). The capacity to continue to feed the population, supply the military, and continue war production were approaching nil. Once the ready-to-hand stockpiles of materials were used up, Japan would be defenseless. The question in this regard was how long the US Navy (which had Japan completely blockaded) could continue out against the Kamikazes, while waiting for the Japanese to finally run out of the means to continue fighting.

This is true, but is it any more humane to starve civilians than to bomb them? Continuing the blockade and the resulting starvation would have spread the deaths throughout the whole nation and greatly increased the their number. Less Japanese died because the bombs forced their surrender.

[Wombat101]

"... but is it any more humane to starve civilians than to bomb them?"

That was my original question. If we set out to kill, the method, it seems to me is unimportant, and therefore, one method is not "cleaner" or "morally superior" to the other. I keep coming back to "Thou shall not kill" and "What you do to the least of my brothers.." I'm an agnostic, truth to tell, but I still believe there is a lot to be said for that philosophy.

As a former military man (and the descendant of military men) I understand the need for war and realize that it's not a very nice business.

But, since we live in a nation that was founded upon the principles of Western Civilization (prime amongst them the Judeo-Christian ethic mentioned above, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions on Warfare), I think we have a duty to ask those questions, even if the answers merely raise more questions.