> 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, you're misinformed about what the "alternative strategy" was. Since you're starting out with wildly incorrect premises, of course the rest of your argument is irrelevant.
The alternative strategy was to attempt to negotiate a surrender by reassuring the Japanese that the Emperor would retain his title. There are many indications that the main barrier to a voluntary Japanese surrender was our insistence on unconditional surrender; the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death for their holy Emperor.
Contrary to what your email implies, this strategy was not tried after Midway; not tried after Guadalcanal; not tried after Saipan; not tried after the Marianas; not tried after the Battle of Leyte Gulf; not tried after the conquest of Iwo Jima; and not tried after the conquest of Okinawa. So none of those events prove the alternative strategy wouldn't have worked.
If a negotiated surrender without the bombs had proven impossible, then the option of dropping the bombs would still have existed.
By the way, after we bombed Nagasaki, the Japanese were shaken, but were willing to fight on. They didn't surrender until after we reassured them that the Emperor would be retained, in an Allied statement to the Japanese made on August 11th 1945.
Barry Deutsch