I've long felt an unease about the justification of nuclear weapons, including the nuclear umbrella over Europe and that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks saved lives.
As for the nuclear umbrella, Britain and France had their own nuclear weapons, and so why would they need U.S. nuclear weapons to prevent attack by the Soviet Union? As far as the invasion of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union, was it not by the same rationale that the U.S. has attacked Iraq and Afghanistan? After the horrors of the siege of Leningrad, wouldn't any sane leader be sure to provide a big buffer between his country and the attacker? How many times before was Russia invaded from Europe?
That is not to say the Soviet Union was a benign keeper of the peace; it wasn't.
As for saving lives, whose lives did the deaths of thousands of women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki save? Invading troops? Would not a naval blockade of a country that had a defeated navy been just as effective? Were the bombs to bring a quick end to the war before the Soviets got involved? The Japanese were just as aware of the possibility and ready to surrender. It really pays to know your enemy, and too many warring countries have no clear understanding of their enemies.
For a more detailed discussion of the futility of nuclear weapons, see "The Myth of Nuclear Necessity", Ward Wilson, New York Times, 2013-01-13.
