we had plenty of targets left in Iraq
What is left in Iraq bears no relationship to how Japan was. I don't recall hearing that 66 cities were burned to the ground in Iraq.
"What I said it that it is illogical to think that the reports conclusion that the war would have ended by the end of december without the atomic bombs or an invasion, also included the unstated assumption "without continued bombing and a continued blockade of Japan".
No you didn't. The assumption and insinuation was: "without continued "HEAVY" bombing, and the massive civilian casualties that would accrue thereto. You stated and implied this in different words, from various angles, and on more than one occasion."
Hell, anyone would assume that control and pressure from the air would involve some scattered bombing to pin down, frighten, and maintain a dreadful presence. But there is no logical connection from this to the extravagant (and IMO rather naive) suggestion of indiscriminate firebombing.
There are several objections to such a simplistic opinion, not the least being the fact that there were only a few viable civilian targets remaining--these being the cities on the reserve list for nuclear attack; as well, Japan being on the brink of surrender, there is every reason to believe that the Americans could have exhibited the moral qualities which a Constitution based on individual rights and freedoms naturally inform. To assume that they would have remained in a moral darkness of pain and rage is to underestimate the ability of leadership to find depth and power in crisis. A new President struggling to weigh many momentous decisions cannot be expected to cook a perfect souffle the first time. A re-writing of the Potsdam demand would have garnered a quick surrender.
I know; I've heard that argument: "Why should we? Did they do us any favors?" etc., etc.
Well, it wasn't a suckling babe flying over pearl harbor.
"I also said it was quite possible that the bombing and blockade could have killed more people then the atomic bombs"
They COULD have killed every man, woman, and child. Naturally this reduces your sincere "comparison" to meaninglessness, which is why I have objected.
"So a country on the brink, without adequate supplies for its people, its industry or its military, facing almost 5 months of total blockade and continueing bombing which could almost completly wipe out its infrastucture would face no significant amount of starvation?!?"
That is the most likely conclusion. A country poised "on the brink" of surrender would have some rather compelling reasons for doing so. It was their choice when to surrender; why would they wait till the end of October?
They had only one reason not to surrender, and that was to continue negotiating for better terms for their Emperor God. The army were the only holdout on this. They still hoped that America would invade on foot, so that they could mount a guerilla warfare, wreak some havoc, and gain better surrender terms.
But it was not to be. There was no reason to risk any American lives. Japan was an impotent ash-heap. How long would it have taken to persuade, OR TO FORCE, the hard-liners to acquiescence? IMO, not very long at all. How long, in the event that America had the mercy to leave a vanquished and beaten people with the last thing that informed their national identity--their Emperor?
I suggest, in that event, that the surrender would have been finalized much quicker. It is true that the hard-liners wanted more than simply the sanctity of the Emperor. They also hoped for other concessions. But once the final offer is down there is absolutely no point in being taunted from the air.
Of course, the fear of execution was another big concern for the army hard-liner approach...but that is another story.
"It could easily have been greater then 5 times as many deaths"
It COULD have been as many deaths as there were still people alive and breathing...if that (genocide) was the purpose of the Americans. However, if the purpose was simply to effect a surrender, then your statement about how many COULD have been killed is meaningless and misleading. It does nothing to add credibility to your 5:1 figure. As the deaths COULD have been any number up to the census; so your ratio COULD be right. I just find it contrived, self swerving, meaningless and misleading: Style before Substance.
"If you could drop the uncertainty would the immorality of murdering one person prevent you from stopping his later murder of millions."
Tim, you cannot judge and punish a man for what you think he "might" do: only for what he has done. If this man (Hitler) has done nothing, then you have no cause with him. If he has done something (criminal), then your cause with him is not one of self defence, but one of justice. Your only valid option is to report the crime to the authorities empowered to the administration of justice. Of course, if the crime was committed outside of their jurisdiction, you may not be able to count on their co-operation...
If several trillion (or perhaps an infinite number of trillion) swashbucklers like yourself, take up scurrying around trying to trim the bonsai tree of time, things can get rather confused in one hell of a hurry.
We know now who the inventor of the time machine was; but that still does not help us to put the thing out of business. |
