The firebombings were carrying the war to the civilian population in an effort to punish them. Curtis LeMay, who was in charge of that bombing, confirms that view. Not force surrender, as the matter had been decided by then.

The civilians did not have a say in ending the war, and the firebombing was pure terrorism. Understandable terrorism, but in the end little if any different than the Japanese carrying the war to the Chinese civilians. (If one is to believe one of the less credible posters here, war is war, and it's fair to kill civilians. Carpet-bombing them is a tactic of choice.)

At that point in the war it was not necessary to do anything except blockade Japan. An island, dependent upon outside resources, Japan would have further withered. Wouldn't have been necessary to invade, either.

I happen to believe that dropping the A-bomb was undertandable under the circumstances. And, at the time they were dropping it the Japanese had signaled an intention to surrender, with just the status of the Emperor a matter of negotiation.

And as it was, the "Unconditional Surrender" did provide for a continuing role for the Emperor, as being in the best interest of the Allies.

Arf