4 ms·

I think it's worth noting that article is not second guessing the decision. There's really no discussion of if dropping the bomb was right. It's arguing for wha

• ChuckMcM 13y ago
  When I read that article, I certainly came away with the opinion that they were second guessing the decision. They get there by arguing about another point which is what caused the surrender. The reason I get that impression is because its a natural consequence that if the reason for the surrender was not the dropping of the Atomic bomb, then the decision to drop the bomb was unnecessary at best and erroneous at worst. Perhaps I've read too many foreign policy debates but that is exactly the way someone says something without actually saying it. Which makes for face saving diplomacy and protracted if ineffective debate. Had they not been second guessing the decision the dropping, they would have included that the war declaration by Stalin was insufficient in its own right to cause the surrender. Similarly they might posit that it was the combination of those things. Reading such debates is a combination of reading what they don't say, what they do say, and how they say it.
  • akiselev 13y ago
    Other than the headline, I read the article as second guessing Americans' general perception that the atomic bomb was the end all be all of the Allied victory in the Pacific.
    • scott_s 13y ago
      The phrase "second guessing" is typically associated with questioning a decision or action. It's not typically associated with questioning a conclusion. So, I would not use the phrase "second guessing" in your sentence. One that, I think, is semantically more clear is "calling into question".