Loss of life in Japan from continued conventional bombings vs the atomic bombings?

In the argument some make on the immorality of the atomic bombings of Japan, the argument is made that conventional bombings could have sufficed. But here's the question assuming the US continued its campaign of prolonged conventional bombings over Japan would the loss of life resulting have been much different? especially given Japan may have taken longer to surrender.
 
This might well open a hornets nest of discussion.

TLDR is yes. A LOT more would have died due to ongoing firebombing, the continued breakdown of food supplies and the means to move those supplies around. Not to mention that the Japanese were killing thousands of their 'asian brothers' in the territories they still occupied every month, if not tens of thousands of them.

The blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrific as they were, saved lives by shortening the war, instead of having it drag out for months with the japanese increasingly unable to defend themselves but against surrender. You'd see famine and disease joining the assault on Japan alongside the silver bombers of the USAAF.
 
In the argument some make on the immorality of the atomic bombings of Japan, the argument is made that conventional bombings could have sufficed. But here's the question assuming the US continued its campaign of prolonged conventional bombings over Japan would the loss of life resulting have been much different? especially given Japan may have taken longer to surrender.

i've never heard the argument being made the conventional bombings would have been enough and the atomic bombing were immoral. Not in the same sentence, as it seems rather contradictory. The firebombings were far worse than what the two atomic bombs did, physically at least. The psychological and political impact was a lot larger though, something that can't have been prevented anyway. The idea of bombs that can level a city singlehandedly, just 1 plane and 1 bomb. That was the immoral factor people put in, as the bombs aren't mean to be actually used, just as a bluff(why build tens of thousands of them then?). Like a fleet-in-being just having the bombs should be enough, demonstrated and understood.

The decision was made to force the Japanese into a surrender quickly, the Soviet were readying their forces as well. If the bombs didn't work an invasion was planned, conventional bombing would have never been enough.

An invasion, would have changed the face of the war.
 
A lot of Japanese would have died from starvation if the US opted for a more passive approach of continued blockade and conventional bombing.

And of course a lot of Americans would have died in Operation Downfall along with Japanese military, conscripts and civilians.

So I've always personally been comfortable with the atomic bombings. It's more a visceral thing than anything else when you consider it was inevitably going to end horrifically for Japan as long as they persisted in holding out.
 
The blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrific as they were, saved lives by shortening the war,

That’s debatable, although I agree that continued conventional bombing wasn’t a viable alternative. The main basis for the theory comes from the United States Strategic Bombing survey, and it’s easy to be sceptical that the people who were doing the conventional bombing felt that they were the dominant factor in ending the war. Le May himself admitted that had Japan continued to fight the USAAF would have quickly began to run out of cities to burn and would instead have focused on crippling Japanese infrastructure to accelerate the imminent famine. Far more people would have died than in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks but the war would likely have gone on regardless.
 
My grandfather's were in the navy and would've been in Operation Downfall. Of it had gone forward mY family wouldn't have existed. As much as I hate to say it, the nuclear bombs helped the process of ending the war (there were a thousand other factors).
 
It's likely that by continuing the war through conventional means more of Japan would end up as Red and post war we might see a North Japan (Communist) and a South Japan (Capitalist) emerge if the Russians invaded the main islands.

It is my opinion that the bombs were dropped on Japan but they were also aimed at making Russia take notice.
 
Top