One alternative considered was conducting ground invasions of Japan. However, as stated previously, an invasion would have been met with heavy resistance and significant casualties would have resulted. The Japanese military was strong and resilient, and while death was an option, surrender was not. The invasions would have most likely not been effective in the goal of reaching a surrender. Another alternative could have been the continued use of conventional bombing and blockading to force surrender. Previous firebombings of cities such as Tokyo proved to be ineffective. The stance of the Japanese military remained the same, even after Japan suffered losses in battles like Okinawa. In fact, the first atomic bomb dropped by the United States on the city of Hiroshima was not even considered "atomic in nature" by the Japanese administration. A third alternative considered was to demonstrate the power of the bomb in an unpopulated, deserted area. This was meant to convince Japan to surrender by showing the ability of the bomb to inflict powerful damage on a city. Nonetheless, the United States wasn't sure that Japan would surrender to the threat of the bomb. Also, the research and technology pertaining to the atomic bomb were still relatively new and not perfected, and there was a chance that, consequently, the bomb would not work well or at all. There were only so many atomic weapons the United States had at the time, and they did not want to potentially waste one, in the event that two were needed to get Japan to surrender. In hindsight, the use of the bomb was a better decision, because Japan surrendered after two atomic bombs were dropped on the cities Hiroshima and