On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:57:13 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Nov 2, 1:34?pm, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasio

The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this
assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands
years after the war. I dsoubt there was any kind of attrition war that
would have defeated them and we might still have an Iraqi style
insurrection around the world.
Remember the Japanese invented the suicide bomber.

The conquest of Okinawa undoubtedly contributed to the disheartened
state of the Japanese empire at the time of the bombing. From what I
have been able to learn after the fact, I tend to agree with the
opinions expressed by Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, as well as
Admiral Leahy. We had options. We chose one that proved to work
decisively.
Monday morning quarterbacks and certain generals and admirals will
long debate whether we chose the "best" option. We succeeded in
keeping the Russians out of Japan, denying them warm water Pacific
naval bases that would have allowed them to more easily launch a
conventional, 1940's style war against the United States.

Speaking of Japanese in a boating forum...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinyo

These came up in a novel I'm reading. Interesting vessels!