The suvey was complete and inpartial and the conclusions were clear.
Even if it was complete and impartial that doesn't mean it has to be correct in its conclusions. Intelligent, determined, and impartial experts can still be incorrect, and that is assuming they where all three. In this case you are dealing with what ifs, so its almost impossible to know for sure. You can examine the facts, read reports and analysis and opinion pieces and maybe have a reasonable chance to form a conclusion that has more then a 50% chance of being correct but its not testable.
Also even if they would have surrendered, how much longer would it have taken? Your survey says by December. I don't view that as so certain but even if they did a blockade and bombing with high explosives and incendiaries, would have caused death and suffering that may have been more then what the atom bombs caused. If on the other hand we where to stop bombing, and not invade, and allow some shipping to reach Japan unmolested then they might not have surrendered.
There is also the consideration that even if we did not invade or drop the bomb, the Soviets might have invaded.
They did invade a few islands. An all out invasion might have been unlikely but was possible. If it did happen the invading army would probably have been very brutal, and Japan could have suffered under decades of communism.
One thing that is interesting is that the site that you get the report from says the following about it -
"The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reports do not state or even suggest that the use of the atomic bomb against Japan was unwise. On the contrary, a careful analysis of the USSBS findings supports the wisdom of using the bombs. "
It also has this link
anesi.com
For those who don't want to follow the link its main points are
"The Survey assumed that continued conventional attacks on Japan -- with additional direct and indirect
casualties -- would be needed to force surrender by the November or December dates mentioned;
The Survey's estimate of Japan's likelihood of surrender without the atomic bombings, subject only to continued
conventional attack, was based largely on information collected after the end of the war, and not known to
decision makers in August, 1945;
The Survey acknowledged that use of the atomic bombs hastened the end of the war; and
The Survey did not, in any way, criticize the use of the atomic bombs or suggest that they were not the most
humane and least costly means for ending the war. (They merely opined that Japan's surrender could have been
achieved through conventional air power only; they did not say that the use of conventional air power would
have been more merciful or less costly.) " |
