" They could have been blockaded until the population forced the government to surrender "
How can blockading Japan and therefore, causing the people to slowly starve to death somehow be more compassionate and morally acceptable in the" Christian " view in any war ?
What about what Gen Grant did in Vicksburg ? in the siege of Vicksburg ? , it can safely be assumed that there were many " Christians " who starved to death in that city.
Just explain to us how slowly starving people to death is somehow morally acceptable in the Christian view as you would have layed out the reason to have a seige on Japan compared to dropping 2 a-bombs in Japan.
You run a risk that they might be so pigheaded as to hang on till they all starve to death. But most people will not let things get to that extreme before taking matters into their own hands. Certainly, there wasn't much left of the army's capability that it could squash a rebellion. If we were really that worried about desperate fighting leading to massive Allied casualties, we were under no obligation to go in. We could just wait them out, until they themselves had had enough. It would have the component of being their own choice if they didn't put a stop to the militarists themselves.
As far as sieges in general go, it is harder to get a small (city-sized) population to get its leadership to "see some sense," since the military garrison in such a besieged town is likely to be a significant portion of the whole population. I do not advocate such sieges. Doing the same thing to 80 or 90 million folks of an island nation with a shattered military capability has much better chance for success before the whole population starves. Plus, we would be under no obligation to invade if we really thought we'd take extremely high casualties. Neither would we be under an obligation to just go home and let the Japanese regroup to fight again. A blockade is a much better option than firebombing and nuking them.
But, actually, how does this all this blockade talk relate to the undoubted moral vacuum in firebombing and nuking whole cities known to be populated by nearly entirely civilian populations? Enough deflection. The Religion Forum is our venue. We're dealing with the moral dimension. How can the deliberate and direct targeting of children who have done absolutely nothing be considered a moral act?