[yarddog]

I suppose we could have starved the Japanese to death but that would have taken a long time and been incredibly cruel.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Perhaps we could have set up a blockade around Japan, but starving them to death would have been cruel, you are right.

I hope Alberta’s Child will elaborate on how we could have ended the war without the A-bomb and without a conventional invasion of Japan.

[jttpwalsh]

My Uncle married a Japanese woman. Her brother was one of the best people I have ever known. Their father didn’t make it back to Tokyo until the end of 1946, he was a POW in Russian controlled territory (N.Korea, I think). As such, it was the son’s job, as the oldest boy (11 years old), to bring food home, to the starving family. He learned very quickly to find a military encampment, bring a pot, do menial chores (shoe shines, etc.), and then return home with leftover food. I remember him saying “One thing was for sure, in those uncertain times; G.I.s are gonna be fed, three times a day”.

[Alberta's Child]

There's a legitimate question about a third alternative to the two I presented previously, but looking back nearly 70 years later there's no way to answer hypothetical question like that accurately. On the one hand folks will insist that the Japanese -- soldier and civilian alike -- would have fought to the death of every last one of them. But on the other hand, it would have been "incredibly cruel" to starve them to death over their own refusal to surrender? I'm not sure that logically follows.

But then that would have been their responsibility, not ours -- right?

[gura]

We already had battleships offshore shelling factories before we dropped the bomb.

[reg45]

I suppose we could have starved the Japanese to death but that would have taken a long time and been incredibly cruel.

Furthermore, most of the starvation would have been inflicted upon peasants and civilians, not upon the military and political rulers of Japan.