Was the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki objectively the better decision?

by GeckoSoldierX

There have been a lot of times when this topic comes up in conversation or in a college class, and it feels like there are always people who think it was a terrible mistake.

The perspective I have always learned from books/documentaries/etc is that the bombs themselves are devastating and terrible (as can be seen in the museums with all of the firsthand imagery/accounts) but that it was the right decision because a mainland invasion would have caused even more death, and the Japanese would have never surrendered. Is this not the case, and what I’ve learned is just meant to make the events seem a little less terrible?

jschooltiger

u/restricteddata has written extensively about this question -- he has pretty much cornered this section of our FAQ. The question he's answered most like the one you have can be found here.