Replying to a message of TOM WALKER to BOB ACKLEY:

 BA>> In any case Japan was incapable of doing *anything* at that point. 
 BA>> She was an island nation with no remaining commerce, her vaunted
 BA>> 'Kwantung Army' had been stripped and the troops sent to defend
 BA>> islands that the US bypassed (and many of them were drowned when the
 BA>> ships carrying them were sunk). Two thirds of Japan's shipping
 BA>> capacity had been sunk (along with most of he navy) and the rest of
 BA>> it was hiding in ports still controlled by Japan.  Ver little was
 BA>> getting through the US blockade of the islands and certainly not
 BA>> enough maintain either Japan's population or its remaining military. 
 BA>> Japan's navy reduced to one old, damaged battleship, a few
 BA>> destroyers and a couple of doz (very good) submarines in the home
 BA>> waters and a small fleet of cruisers and destroyers at Singapore. 
 BA>> All but a very few of Japan's experienced pilots h been killed. 
 BA>> While Japan does have a native supply of coal it does not have a
 BA>> native supply of oil.  The US could have sat back and literally
 BA>> starved Japan into submission, but that would have taken at least a
 BA>> year.

 TW> So STARVING Millions to death would be Better than dropping the Bomb
 TW> and quickly ending the war with FAR less casualities??

It does depend on one's POV, doesn't it?

Nobody went after Curtis LeMay for his firebombing of Japanese cities - which
killed more Japanese people than both of the nukes combined.  Japanese cities
were very vulnerable to fire because of the type of construction used, there was
little concrete or masonry in residential areas.  Yet because no nukes were used
I guess that's OK.

Remember that all we knew about the nukes in 1945 was that they were very big
bangs.  All the knowledge about radiation, fallout and other hazards was developed
later.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+