It concluded that the war as it was being waged would end by the end of 1945
It didn't say that. You added in the "as it was being waged" part.
Yes I added it, and in the context of this dicussion it makes no sense not to add it. It seems clear that the report assumed it. If we stopped attacking Japan, then Japan would not be forced to surrender. We had been bombing Japan for some time before the surrender. There is no reason to believe the authors of the report thought that for some reason this would stop in August but that Japan would shortly surrender anyway despite the cessation of these attacks. If the report was dealing with estimates of what would have happened had certain things been different it should have made it clear what these things where. It does mention that Japan would have surrendered without the dropping of the A-bombs. It doesn't say anything about stopping the conventional bombing. In fact it makes at least one statement implying the exact opposite. - "Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion." If we stopped our ongoing bombing campaign in the summer of 45 what pressure would our air supremacy over Japan be exerting?
The worse case scenariio was (I quote): "If Truman takes the political flak and negotiates a conditional surrender, we have no starvation; if not, then we have some; but in all probability, none past October." I asume you are working with this as you responded to it, and did not add any of your own ideas about martians or an atom bomb from Austria or anything else.
The "possibility" of some starvation FAR worse than the atomic bomb, eh Tim? Ok, Tim. I don't think I wish to discuss this particular question any further with you.
The worst case scenario was 5 or more months of heavy bombing and total blockade and/or a massive invasion. The worst reasonably possible result of this combination would be Japanese deaths in the millions and if an invasion of Japan happened hundreds of thousands of American deaths. A death toll of millions may not have actually been the most likely result but it is not ridiculous like martians or Austrian nukes hitting Japan in 1945. What you posted was close to the best case scenario not the worst case.
In any event, I thoroughly answered that question, so I am surprised if you were referring to it again. I spoke clearly about the principles of self defence, and I painstakingly contrasted it with murder. It is inhuman and unjust to murder innocent people.
To clarify you are both calling the A-bomb attacks (and presumably the firebombing of Tokyo and the destruction of Dresden) to be murder, and you would not order such an attack even if you thought that such attacks where needed to end the war, and that more deaths, both total deaths, and deaths of innocent Japanese civilians, would be caused by continuing the war if the bombs where not dropped?
Tim |
