If no A-bomb, would the Allies need to invade Japanese Mainland?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#1

Let’s say the U.S. didn’t have or was hesitant to use the atomic bombs to close out the war in the Pacific. Could their naval blockade and saturation bombing have forced a surrender, or would an invasion of the Japanese Mainland been required?

#2

In the last six months this subject and variations on the end of the war with Japan have been beat to death here

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=236536

here

https://historum.com/threads/gaining-a-ww2-unconditional-japanese-surrender-from-naval-blockade.178894/

here

https://historum.com/threads/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did.94250/

here

https://historum.com/threads/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did.94250/

and here

https://historum.com/threads/could-the-bombing-of-hiroshima-be-considered-a-war-crime.130988/

might want to take a look before we beat it to death here.

#3

I’m not going to go in-depth here, but I think we have some threads that are at least related here. But I think everyone came to the conclusion that if the A-bombs hadn’t dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, they most certainly have been used after landings as tactical nukes. And then there’s the poison gas the US was prepared to use against Japanese troops fighting from caves…

#4

Invasion would have been necessary. A blockade might starve millions which is not in anyone’s interest. An invasion wiuyld have been a disastrous mess with tremendous casualties on both sides. The Bomb was a much better thing to try first.

#5

There is no question we should have dropped the A-Bomb and in fact the Generals wanted to drop more. The questions should be, did we drop enough? More would have been nicer and sent a clear message.