My grandfather had squared off against the Japanese on both Guadalcanal and Peleliu (where he lost his foot and a portion of his leg), so I can understand your take on that particular situation.
My contention, and I'll admit it's wholly academic, is that another way could have been found. The only restraints in the path of those potential-other-ways was the imagination and ingenuity of American commanders, the political situations (foreign and domestic) at the time, and the desire to see the "boys come home" as quickly as possible.
In a scientific sense, Hiroshima was unneccessary, in my opinion, and the decision was driven not by military factors (i.e. efficiency and avoidance of casualities,although the bombs certainly helped in these ways) but by political ones. And that even when the decision was made, the aftermath with regards to Japan, was certainly far different that what had been previosuly stated as Allied war aims.
I agree that the outcome was different, but The Japanese were willing to sacrifice everything to defeat us. Women, children, it made no difference. They felt they had nothing to lose.
Our bombs just made them lose less than they would have in a land war. But, they still lost. The war ended. As a military tactic, dropping the bomb could not have been more of a success. Who knows how long the war in Japan would have lasted? And boys did get to come home to their families.
1. In the entire war, not one single Japanese officer had surrendered the troops under his command. Surrender was not and never would have been an option. Furthermore, the home island was no more outmanned that Iwo Jima. How many Japanese surrendered there?
2. We had broken their code, and were listening to them. No Japanese official was discussing surrender, despite whatever fairy tale you have bought into. And, finally, Sherman deliberately avoided military targets and attacked civilians. Give me an example of one MILITARY target that he attacked.
My contention, and I'll admit it's wholly academic, is that another way could have been found.
Your comments are chillingly arrogant. US invasion casualties were forecast to be over one million men.
That's why it was chosen as the drop-site instead of Tokyo.
Your contention has a precedent. World War I was ended by your "other way". Since it did not demonstrate to the Germans that they had really lost, they did not believe it and took "another round" to prove to the world that they were able to defeat their enemies.
The author is absolutely correct. Until an opponent is convinced in their own mind, that they are defeated, there will just be another round later.
If you ever got involved in a civil lawsuit, you would know how it works. It doesn't stop or go away until your opponent is prostrate and recognizes they are defeated.
It isn't just "wars" that have that dynamic.
Come on, you're the dreamer, the "idealist"...you tell US what should have been done, and make the case why it worked.
I think your post merely proves that nothing is impossible...as long as it's somebody else's job.