I think the first direction to go with your question is classifying "revenge" and what you mean by that. As someone who has spent time in the Pacific Theater on various islands I can tell you a bit about the attitude that the United States had in the war effort and strategy of island hopping. Insofar as revenge I think you probably mean the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

As far as historic work is concerned I am going to refer you to Diana Steele and her paper which I found through Dickinson University. Her senior thesis is titled, "America's Reaction to the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Link: http://users.dickinson.edu/~history/product/steele/seniorthesis.htm

Steele addresses revenge and points to the book: "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Archictecture of an American Myth" by Gar Alperovitz. As far as the content of her essay and the content of the book I cannot comment on. But I think it should help fill in some gaps for you. Seeing as how this is a senior thesis and likely a capstone piece I am sure it is full of good information.

As for my own opinion I would never view the Atomic Bombs used on Hiroshima or Nagasaki as a direct correlation of revenge for Pearl Harbor. I see them as two distinctly different decisions from two different countries. Any kind of argument can be made here and yes, it is a subject which can be heavily dissected.

Having spent time on Tinian where the Enola Gay and the bombs where kept I can tell you the United States wanted to end the war in a decisive matter. Tinian offered the perfect location to launch the B-29 and Tibbets was the man who would deliver for them. Tibbets is a great case study in and of himself. There was no doubting from the testing what the bomb was capable of doing. The bomb was a closely guarded secret and the scientists on Tinian labored to get everything operation.

Whether or not you were angry or happy on the bombings themselves is a case by case matter. It depends on the moral and ethical attitude of each individual American. I think the same can still be said today. How can we quantify the value of human life in war? Is it perfectly justifiable? The Historians over in that part of the world make no reservations about their opinion on the matter. Drop the bomb and drop it every time.

The reason being the toll of the island hopping campaign and just how relentless the Japanese were in defending. I can bring numerous examples to the table for you. The Pacific is a bloody and macabre military campaign. For historians that I talked to they firmly believe the Japanese would have never of surrendered their home island easily. And would have continued fighting to the last so to speak. Plus you have the influence of the European theater ending and the pending Soviet involvement in Japanese affairs. Truman as I have been told and believe did not want the Russians gaining any involvement in the surrender and piece process as they did in Europe. For Truman he wanted to end the war and secure peace before the Soviets could act.

Yes, using such weaponry is problematic as you don't want to go after a civilian populace. It is a measure which was heavily discussed. Truman may have wanted to end the war, but there is another wrinkle to consider. Throughout all of this time America was heavily bombing Japan already. It wasn't like mainland Japan had remained untouched and scarred during the island hoping phase. Tinian at one point in time was the largest airfield in the world. They were constantly sending out bombers to Japan and other islands. B-29s were taking off all day and night. Eventually the decision has to be made and Truman made the decision.

If someone had a problem with it at that point in the war the war cabinet and Truman weren't listening. Do you continue to bomb and force a surrender based on destroyed infrastructure? Do you send in the troops and land on Japan and risk the lives of the soldiers who take part in the Operation. It is a "what-if" of history here. What if we choose not to drop the bomb, but instead invade Japan. Leading up to such an invasion the bombings would have intensified and a blockade would have been enforced. The Soviets would have arrived and I stand firm in the belief that they would have wanted caveats in the surrender terms. Of course this is open to debate on what Stalin might have done. But as I have said for these reasons the Atomic Bomb and what it could do offered an alternative. Albeit one which arguably changed the landscape of human history and warfare. The swift and utter destructive power of atomic weaponry upon two civilian cities. As I have said I do not think "revenge" for Pearl Harbor can be held akin to the Atomic Bombings.

Think about this too, during the Second World War we had Japanese-Americans in internment camps throughout the United States. If you want to talk about "revenge" and malicious intent besides the atomic bomb discussion look there.

Don A. Farrell is a historian out on Tinian if you are interested in learning more about the Pacific and gain more perspective on the bombs he has some books that might be worth reading.

Thanks for posting this. I hope this has been informative and has sparked your mind full of historical interest.