On Dec 24, 1:14 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." wrote:
Mr. Self,

...

It would have been more moral, then, to invade the Japanese home
islands which they had sworn to defend the last person?

During WWII, the Japanese showed an unusual taste for last ditch
defense, actually suiciding in preference to being captured.

I think that it should be made clear that that penchant for suicide
extended to the civilians, it wasn't just the soldiers. On Saipan
about 20 percent of the civilian population committed suicide. I
don't know the number for Okinawa but it was also substantial. If 20
percent of the Japanese home islands population did the same that
would have been 14 million dead over and above however many died in
the fighting.

They were
tough, tenacious fighters with good (in the terms of fighting)
leadership, and more than a little ability to dream up new ways of
killing U.S. troops.

Estimated casualties for an invasion of the Japanese homeland ran
from one to five million, including Japanese civilians.

But those are combat casualties only, and do nto take into
consideration
starvation.


A-bombing immoral? Actually, the invasion would have been immoral.

Perhaps he feels that Japan should have just been blockaded forever?


Most people who advocate an indefinite blockade aren't considering
the one million Japanese troops on the Asian Mainland.

--

FF