Christian scholars say no war

[Bradford DeLong]

>  > The U.S. nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much terrorist
>>  acts as anything else. I think they were justified terrorist
>>  acts--they succeeded in bringing an end to the Japanese militarist
>>  government, and did so with a much lower butcher's bill than any
>>  conceivable invasion of Honshu. But that doesn't change their
>>  character...
>
>This assumes that it would have been implausible to end the war without
>either dropping the nukes or doing a full scale invasion of Japan. Many
>current historians don't feel that's a safe assumption.
>
>Barry

Assuming--in 1945--that the war could be ended some other way would 
seem to be an even less safe assumption. Japan could not have 
launched the war. Japan could have surrendered after Midway. Japan 
could have surrendered after Guadalcanal. Japan could have 
surrendered after Saipan. Japan could have surrendered after the 
Marianas. Japan could have surrendered after the Battle of Leyte 
Gulf. Japan could have surrendered after the conquest of Iwo Jima. 
Japan could have surrendered after the conquest of Okinawa.

The Japanese military government didn't.

So I've never seen how the alternative strategy--which seems to 
involve simply mopping up the Japanese army in China and waiting for 
the Japanese generals and admirals to surrender--is supposed to have 
worked.

Brad DeLong