I'm inclined to agree with Shell that isolating Japan perhaps might have (with hindsight) been a better idea. But I really don't hold a strong opinion because I recognise my lack of understanding about the pacific during WWII as well as the subsequent Cold War.
I don't know whether this has been mentioned already, but a world where an atomic bomb has been dropped and a world where one hasn't are two very different places (I apologise for any perceived condescension here, I know this is obvious). Had those bombs not been dropped I think we might not fully appreciate how destructive they were. It's one thing to hear that a bomb can level a city, but it's something else to see it in action. How disquieting to think that 100,000 people could be destroyed so utterly in an instant. Perhaps the seriousness that nuclear weapons are treated with, by governments and by people in general, would be diminished had they not been used. I'm not endorsing one side of the argument or the other (and really there's more than two sides anyway as has been mentioned), it's just a thought.
I don't know whether this has been mentioned already, but a world where an atomic bomb has been dropped and a world where one hasn't are two very different places (I apologise for any perceived condescension here, I know this is obvious). Had those bombs not been dropped I think we might not fully appreciate how destructive they were. It's one thing to hear that a bomb can level a city, but it's something else to see it in action. How disquieting to think that 100,000 people could be destroyed so utterly in an instant. Perhaps the seriousness that nuclear weapons are treated with, by governments and by people in general, would be diminished had they not been used. I'm not endorsing one side of the argument or the other (and really there's more than two sides anyway as has been mentioned), it's just a thought.