really? why dont you answer some of the questions i posed...

oh yeah, you are tired of looking ignorant.

__________________

Actually, you have had several pertinent rebuttals to your posts to which you change the subject onto the poster with gratuitous and lazy comments.

If you have any other alternatives to the ending of the war with Japan, put them forth. If they receive rebuttals, address the rebuttals, not the person.

You'll continue to lose when you change onto the person.

i really tried. but you kept your mouth running about nothing related to this
war/post !!!!!! continuous BS

I am???? who said so ???? you don't count. you can't count.

give some examples please. this is going to be good.
once again, i would love to see this. i was tired of repeating my rebuttals over and over and receiving no rebuttals in return. there is no question i have not answered. namvet cannot dream of saying that.

__________________

Why would an army with a starving population throw food at us?

Apologists would have condemned any action we took; they always seem to have an excuse. Then it probably would have been about the cruelty of starving them before bombing them, or how they would have given up, if only we’d waited another couple weeks, another couple months, another year or two…

The Japanese still had the ability to produce munitions and aircraft and launch ships and subs. Plenty of material for Kamikazes to continue the fight at the expense of more of our countrymen and the Japanese population, so no, I don't see where you're going.

Let's see (as it is so easy to simply scroll through to see them, I'll try repeating them to the blind):
You: Blockade
Several others: Starvation of Japanese civilians

You: Blockade to limit trade
Several others: The island depends on trade to feed its people

You: Blockade to limit trade, but allow food in
Several others: The army would confiscate the food

You: Then the blood is on their hands
Several others: And the Japanese still starve AND the Japanese military is still active AND there is no surrender as you think there would be

You: You (to posters) worship vaporization of humans or you (other posters) worship the bomb.

That about sums it up.

you were implying that food would give them the ability to fight. i was sarcastically suggesting that it takes much more than food to wage offensive warfare, especially the modern form.
nice way to trivialize this debate. if you really thought that, you would not bother to post on this thread.
i need verification of this.

__________________

Me: Then other strategies are still possible, and they still have zero ability to wage offensive warfare (which is everyone's excuse for the bomb)
Everyonelse: silence and insults to defend wounded egos.

keep in mind that a blockade was just one thing that came to me off the top of my head, it is by no means central to my argument:

Dropping the bomb was wrong because the country it was directed at had no ability to wage offensive warfare (despite the stubbornness and delusion of the Japanese army)

__________________

As I asked before in this needlessly redundant thread, put those alternative strategies forth.

[edit] Too bad you edited your post after I quoted it. [/edit]

obviously the great american a bomb is still an option. then you have further blockade, perhaps more restrictive. (allowing only food to enter the country would not give the japanese the ability to rearm, modern armies need much more than that.) any modern nation would crumble in a material sense if it was only allowed food.

since the blockade bought time, there is more time for an internal rebellion (even people who have been lied to their whole life begin to see the light after a while) a true surrender that did not require vaporizing innocents,

point being the blockade kept options other than vaporizing folks (should have been the last idea in a country that praises itself as the defender of common peoples) on the table.

__________________

Sorry if that’s the way it appears; I wasn’t trying to trivialize the debate, just your responses.

Will this do?:

Grim Economic Realities

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

I saw no discussion of Japan's war making abilities in 1945.

If anything, that report supports my argument, not yours. Japan was a very weak enemy.

__________________

I am married to a "Jap"! Take it from me, they don't "do" reason. They don't "do" comprimise. They don't "do" surrender. I have spent a lot of time there and they are a proud people and I respect them, but I believe that Truman made the right decision. A few don't even hate the U.S. for our actions but the Generals and the impotent Emperor.

If you looked at the link, how could you have missed the tables that state in big red letters and numbers that in 1945 alone, the Japanese had produced 17 destroyers, 30 subs, an unknown number of destroyer escorts, 599,563 tons of merchant ships, and 8,263 aircraft? Those were just the number produced that year and don’t include in number remaining in reserve, and further production ended in August with their unconditional surrender. Of course they were very weak, but that’s a far cry from capitulating.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

considering the massive amounts of weaponry on the other side, those figures are minuscule.

For example, Japan produced no air craft carriers in 45. Military historians claim that the air craft carrier was the most key naval vessel in the war.

regardless of their ability to squeeze a few more weapons units, they were still in no way able to project those weapons units off of their shoreline.

production does not equate to the ability to wage offensive warfare. what oil was going to fuel those weapons?

__________________