I agree that the decision to use the bomb wasn't purely (probably not even mostly) based on the desire to limit loss of American and Japanese life. I'm also not saying I necessarily agree with the decision, but an extended siege would surely have caused massive food shortages. By the end of the war Japanese daily rations were already barely above the minimum long term daily requirements, and by 1946 even with US aid, rations were at 65% of minimum daily requirements.
I don't know how many Japanese would have died because of a siege, but it seems likely that if the siege took an extended amount of time, it would be more than died during the bombings.
Additionally in the alternative scenario where the Soviets invade, you'd still likely have a higher death toll. And there is also the continuing deaths of Civilians and POWs in Japanese occupied Manchuria that would have continued until the Soviet invasion was successful.
I don't think I could order a nuclear attack or support a politician who did--but from a purely utilitarian perspective, it's not an easy decision.
I don't know how many Japanese would have died because of a siege, but it seems likely that if the siege took an extended amount of time, it would be more than died during the bombings.
Additionally in the alternative scenario where the Soviets invade, you'd still likely have a higher death toll. And there is also the continuing deaths of Civilians and POWs in Japanese occupied Manchuria that would have continued until the Soviet invasion was successful.
I don't think I could order a nuclear attack or support a politician who did--but from a purely utilitarian perspective, it's not an easy decision.