To produce such a result much death and destruction would have had to continue to create the blockade and then to enforce it. Since we're guessing here on possible outcomes of what ifs, I would think it likely that would have resulted in famine among the civilian population.
Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place.
But I agree, it wasn't the only option. They could have waged the same war to the bitter end, starved them out, use nukes, asked nicely for them to stop, or who knows how many more. Options were presented, an option was chosen.
Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with my complaint of lack of context of the reasoning for using nuclear weapons at the time.
> Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place.
Conspiracy theory? Pearl Harbor, in the form of the attack on a US territory quite so distant from Japanese interests, came about as a result of the US embargo on Japanese use of the panama canal, and their import of metal and oil. The attack happened during the negotiations between the Japan and US about the embargoes, which were not going remotely well for Japan.
Ultimately, it was Japan's hostile action, but the embargoes directly precipitated the military reaction. Had the US completely ignored Japan (not that that would have been a good thing - ultimately the US did the world a service in ending their brutal expansion), the US would not have been drawn into war with them at that point, or likely for years hence, if ever, as the USSR would likely have taken care of it, or, hell, maybe even allied with the US throughout a quick and decisive war - the Japanese would have (and nearly did, on Aug 9th '45) crumbled under that opposing force. Wouldn't that have been a world.
You are correct, the conspiracy theory I'm referring to was the US government was deliberately doing such things in an effort to spur the Japanese to attack a US target for justification to enter the war. Up until Pearl Harbor the American people had little desire to enter the war, which obviously changed in a big way after the attack. I should have been clearer.
The fun part of the conspiracy was the fact that the all-important aircraft carriers were not in port for the attack.
Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with the theory, just mentioning it.
But your what-if at the end there, that is one that would be interesting to consider the outcomes of that potential path of history.
Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place.
But I agree, it wasn't the only option. They could have waged the same war to the bitter end, starved them out, use nukes, asked nicely for them to stop, or who knows how many more. Options were presented, an option was chosen.
Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with my complaint of lack of context of the reasoning for using nuclear weapons at the time.