Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Every man, woman and child in Japan was being trained to fight to the death.
Hello, it's an island . . . and it's home. While I would never feign acceptance of children in combat, do you think American men would not fight to the death if a foreign power invaded? Mothers on slave ships threw children overboard. Some people jumped from the WTC. Desperation can make the unthinkable seem quite reasonable . . . to some.
There was, for all intents and purposed, no noncombatants in 1945 Japan.
What militant garbage! It is incumbent upon thinking (and loving) people to protect the world from you and your ilk that share the "Klan of the CaveBear" mentality. Just b/c a 10 year-old can hold a spear doesn't make him responsible for the ability to kill. In 1945 most Japanese knew nothing more than the propaganda spewed by the leadership . . . much the same in Nazi Germany. Landing on Honshu and mowing down rice farmers is just as illogical as bombing doctors in Dresden or carpenters in Freiburg (Black Forest). Even if your warped sense of morality can justify killing those civilians . . . how can you ponder maiming and killing their children?
You are espousing the same heinous drivel as Al-Qaeda, old-school IRA, far right Likud, Hamas, and like minded groups (OK Likud is a stretch but some are flaming on the fringe). Personally, I think there's nothing honorable or just about most warfare but damn at least keep the pretense that some boundaries should not be crossed.
A diplomatic solution after our experience with Germany and the treaty of Versailles was unthinkable,
Well at least you've identified your problem . . . lack of imagination.
An invasion was going to happen, had we not dropped the bombs.
For the sake of argument could you ponder that an invasion and bombing were not the only two options? If that's beyong your ability how about this one . . . drop ONE bomb . . . give Japan a week or a month to ponder continued resistance. Here's another . . . what exactly was so unacceptable about conditional surrender? Let the emperor save face; who cares as long as Japanese hegemony comes to an end.
Blockading an island of fanatics is fruitless. Look what it's done to Cuba.
Your analogy is illogical. If I don't like your fanaticism I have a myriad of choices. Ignore you, try to keep you from leaving your island, forbid you from entering my ports and encouraging others to do the same. I could pick one or all. Cuba probably has no more per capita fanatics than the US. Most people go about their business trying to provide for themselves and their families. A task made more difficult by the fanatic in power (granted his fanaticism allowed him to seize power by popular revolt against a corrupt albeit US-friendly government) and a hypocritical neighbor that thinks stifling dissent is unacceptable in Cuba but deserving of MFNS for China. And if you ever feel the urge to crack a history book . . . technically the blockade of Cuba (and cool JFK) was quite effective. Describing current US policy towards Cuba as a blockade is terminology used by Castro not the US government.
Next time you try to over think this, ask a WWII veteran what he was thinking as they were gearing up to invade Japan.
Again you resort to curious logic. I have great respect for WWII veterans and the millions of others who died protecting the world from despots. But I don't think Truman consulted the rank-and-file before deciding to drop MULTIPLE nukes on civilians. Go to the archives and read the bombing orders. Read Truman's public and private missives. Read the Franck Report. Read the Bard Memorandum. Read the Szilard Petition. I can't speak for any veteran but I can speak for myself. If my commander-in-chief (my God that's GWB) gave me the false dichotomy of likely death in battle or having my life spared by wanton destruction of civilian centers (I would try to educate him, first) but the only option I could live with would be the former.