"You really can't comprehend an actual disagreement, can you?"
Sure. But when you say things like "muster the implacable violence necessary to destroy" and "found to be the cause of inciting self-defense aggression in poor, misunderstood totalitarians", I see a child playing with a machinegun without the slightest idea what it is or does.
"I won't notice what you're doing."
It no doubt shocks you, given how alien good faith is to your entire life and mind, but in fact getting you to notice what I am doing is the sole point in explaining a rational argument to you.
"why bother writing so much if I'm too stupid to understand you?"
Good point. If there were no one else here, I would. I haven't the slightest respect for either your judgment or your morals, so what you think is utterly unimportant to me. The true assessment of the historical issue is my only concern.
"You deify Stimpson"
Actually I man-ify him. The tendency to deification is part and parcel of all the errors involved, both sides, and in practice deification of mortal men is demonization of those serving them.
"why he was overruled"
Actually I spent quite a few words on condemning that "why", which is obvious to all concerned, even yourself. You speak of a need to "break" a people, when the actual political goal of the war was to get Japan to cease hostilities, to occupy it and demilitarize it.
"this same peacenik"
Why are you deliberately idiotic? Do you think it good rhetoric?
"only sought to distance himself from the decision"
Quite false, he never did. I laid out his own position at the time and he never ducked any of his role in a particle of it. As usual, you are reduced to slandering a man whose shoes you are not fit to shine.
"Stimpson wanted to win the war with the least possible American deaths"
Plenty of people wanted that, he also wanted to end it with the least possible loss of all human life. Which is why he was a civilized man and you are a barbarian.
"in cases of what amounted to total war, it is the height of naivete"
On the contrary, that is where it matters most. Clausewitz described the entire tendency and also the need for political direction of war to remain paramount. No one involved is naive in the slightest. You merely confuse your bloodthirsty cynical barbarism for wisdom, when it is mere drift with the current of human folly.
"forget such extremities"
I forget nothing, and know as much about the war as any man alive. You seem to thinks lots of atrocity makes atrocity wonderful and choiceworthy. It has no such effect.
"not being up front with the enemy by being plain about your goals during discussions?"
Yes exactly. If you are busy trying to plan a military operation and want to surprise someone, by all means surprise them. When instead you are delivering an ultimatum they can accept to end the war, or reject to continue the war, then lying about what you want has remarkably less point to it. Especially when you lie in the direction calculated to not end it.
"rather than talk with you at all"
I really pay remarkably little attention to what impotent defeated barbarians want, except to get their compliance. I don't care what you think or want for the same reason - it is of no moral weight whatsoever. You on the other hand think emulating barbarity is just cheeky, because I suppose the best thing about atrocity is the excuse it gives you to indulge your own taste for it.
"had them groveling so hard they offered their emperor"
Except, whoops, the military staged a coup instead. It was the emperor who intervened and changed the country's policy, not the Bushido code warriors. He did so as a civilized man and not as your cartoon. A man as civilized as Stimson, and vastly more civilized than those generals, or Truman, or you.
"their reliance on sadistic brutality, force and murder"
Behold, the beam is in thine own eye.
"they still would believe that they had fought with honor - and they had not."
Many of them did, some did not. The same is true on the US side. Your principles for example - and it is charity to call them that - are without honor.
Fortunately men like MacArthur and Stimson were wiser by far than you are.
...a child playing with a machinegun without the slightest idea what it is or does. ...how alien good faith is to your entire life and mind... I haven't the slightest respect for either your judgment or your morals, so what you think is utterly unimportant to me. ...Why are you deliberately idiotic? ...you are reduced to slandering a man whose shoes you are not fit to shine. ...he was a civilized man and you are a barbarian. ...You merely confuse your bloodthirsty cynical barbarism for wisdom, when it is mere drift with the current of human folly. ...You seem to thinks lots of atrocity makes atrocity wonderful and choiceworthy. ...You on the other hand think emulating barbarity is just cheeky, because I suppose the best thing about atrocity is the excuse it gives you to indulge your own taste for it. ...vastly more civilized than those generals, or Truman, or you. ...Behold, the beam is in thine own eye. ...Your principles for example - and it is charity to call them that - are without honor. These words of yours are some of the most hate-filled expressions I've ever read online. You purport to be honorable, and judge honor, and you spew acid like this? How dare you, sir - you are deliberately obscene.
And what have I done? Pointedly disagreed with you, and backed my argument? If you'd respond with such viciousness with words, what would you do if you could use physical weapons?
You write "Fortunately men like MacArthur and Stimson were wiser by far than you are" without noting that those men were 100% behind dropping the bomb, and - in fact - within their own capacities, DID so. That's MY argument, not yours. Do you imagine your beloved Stimson spewed your level of insult at those who argued against him - and whom he then agreed with, and followed to his utmost ability? Your foul words are indefensible.
Your lack of shame is utterly repulsive. You have not rebutted my argument, and you've thrown the slander of a lifetime of rage to cover that fact. You actually have the nerve to preen that "I forget nothing, and know as much about the war as any man alive," when men hardened in battle wouldn't think of spouting such shameful arrogance in a million years.
Your argument is full of holes, and so bankrupt you have to resort to personal abuse rather than address it's faults. And you try to take the high ground of honor while sneering at those who had the courage to do the level of killing that freed people like you to preen. Your extreme abusiveness makes you utterly revolting, and reveals your own argument as indefensible and cowardly.
But I'll leave you with a photo that sums you up - here's a representative of the poor people you would defend with searing hatred in the name of their peace. And let it be known that the person YOU grieve for is HOLDING THE SWORD: 
You are depraved, and defend the indefensible. I have made my points, and backed them up, and they have destroyed the very essence of your argument by pointing out the true nature of the Japanese people at that time. You got your butt kicked, and replied with slander, and in doing so made yourself irrelevant. I will not be replying to you again.