I hope we can all agree that the dropping of the atomic bombs was awful. However was there any better options available. I see a lot of people visibly angry about the bombs (and me for saying it was a necessary evil) but never give any other way the allies could have solved the problem.I can only think of 3 plans myself all of which would probably kill more people.
1.Invasion: a full on invasion and military occupation of Japan might be the most deadly since the Japanese government was planning for such an invasion. The populace was almost a national militia ready to fight to the death to defend their home.
bombing the whole country to bits: continuing the preexisting bombardment of cities and industrial centers with more conventional bombs could take much much much longer to get 'results" and may result in many more deaths. (Also firebombing isn't much more pleasant than a nuke, is it?)
Starvation: Blockade the whole Island and starve the people into submission. From what i understand Japan was not able to grow enough food for their citizens (one reason they invaded korea). So instead of a quick death the U.S. would stretch it out to weeks/months of agonizing pain for most of the populace.
Am I wrong with my thinking, was there ever a better option? Wasn't the Japanese army against the idea of surrender under any circumstances? Or am I just a horrible asshole?
Last year I wrote a short article about possible "alternatives" that were on the table in 1945, that don't involve invasion, endless bombardment, or starvation. They are mostly concerned with how the "use the bomb" option could have been modified to be more "humane" (if the goal is limiting collateral damage), by changing up some of the other variables. There is also the diplomatic option of attempting to modify the Potsdam terms in ways that would allow the Japanese to exit the war easier, or waiting for the Soviets to enter. I should indicate here that I am not saying that any one of these might have "worked" or that the bomb was the worst of these options. All choices have their ups and downs depending on what you value most, and all of them (including the atomic bombs) were shrouded in massive uncertainties. But the overall point is that the "choice" per se was not "atomic bomb vs. invade," but questions about timing, about use of the bombs, etc.