old hoodoo ) wrote:
: JMO:

: The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
: war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
: and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
: morality question.

: To me, its a question of responsibility. I personally do not feel that
: cold bloodiedly killing a child to possibly save the life of an adult or
: other children is justified, but that is just me.

: There is also a question if a massive invasion of Japan with the was the
: only option.

Of course not. But the best estimates at the time were, and in
my opinion remain, that all the other options would lead to more
deaths (American, Japanese, and other; adults and children).

: Due to our overwhelming naval and air superiority we could
: have taken over limited strategic sections for the basing of aircraft would
: have had complete dominance over the Islands.

We already had complete dominance. Not an issue. We had
enough aircraft carriers that we could put hundreds of planes in
the air over Japan at any time.

: Rather than taking large
: areas of territory, we would have been able to force the Japanese to come to
: us if they chose. However the Japanese would most probably not have had the
: infrastructure to move large numbers of troops to face our bridgeheads,
: especially in the face of our air and naval superiority.

Support of bridgheads other than in very Southern Japan--
Kyusho or Shikoku--would have been a logistical nightmare. And
Japan was very prepared to resist establishment of bridgheads
in those locations. After the war, we found out that they were
even better prepared than we thought.

: If they did manage to move in a large concentration of troops, then it would
: have been ok to nuke em.

: I think we could have looked at different options. We had already
: successfully starved the Japanese for fuel. They had lost the capacity to
: produce aircraft in any numbers. All they had was a reserve of obsolescent
: aircraft for suicide attacks and these would have been ineffectual once we
: established air bases on Japan.

Not true. They would have been even more effectual than at
Okinawa due to the shorter distances.

: There is no question the Japanese Army would have initially attempted to
: starve its own people to feed itself, but there would be ways to get around
: that and the Japanese people and much of its army would have probably risen
: up against this as it would have been their families that were starving. We
: could have also supplied humanitarian aid to Japanese civilians....the Jap
: army could not be everywhere, especially when we established bridgeheads
: that would have forced their concentration.

Blatant speculation, based on nothing. And certainly not worth
risking tens of thousands of lives on the validity of this
speculation.

: No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment of
: Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
: Japanese hands.

So that makes it OK?

: US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
: have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have been
: far more morally easy to justify.

Pure speculation. And don't forget that thousands of Chinese,
Indonesians, and Filipinos were dying every week in continuing
warfare in those countries, which would have continued all during
the months of low-level warfare in Japan that you are proposing.
Is that OK also?