An ugly question to be sure, but I got in a conversation about this a couple nights ago, and it really made me think. At the end of WWII, the Iron Curtain was falling over Eastern Europe. During that period, only the USA had the atom bomb, and it’s conceivable it could have been used (if only as a threat and/or deterrent) to drive the Soviets back beyond their borders.
The US had a belly full of war in 1945, but not acting on the communist threat when we had the clear upper-hand could have arguably led to the costly excesses of the Cold War, including proxy wars fought in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Actual use of atomic bombs to contain the ambitions of Soviet Russia and the spread of communist dictatorial government may have cost millions of lives; but millions of lives were lost anyway under the rule of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, just to name a few of the worst offenders. Possibly democracies would have flourished in all of what became the Eastern Bloc of Europe in the wake of WWII. And who knows what would have happened in East Asia?
Hindsight is always 20-20 as they say. Then again, far worse may have befallen the world if the US and its allies chose to take on Stalin once the Nazis were defeated. But the facts remain: In the wake of WWII, even with a decimated military, the Soviets were able to make an empire out of half of Europe, which existed under oppressive communist rule for half a century; subsequent to these initial gains, communism took root in China, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, with the help of the Soviets. At the end of WWII, the American military-industrial machine was in full swing, with enough resources to support several more years of intense warfare. Our casualties were light compared to the tens of millions of European combatants slain. Most importantly, we were in sole possession of nuclear weapons, which allowed us to level entire cities with a single plane. For a brief time, we could have probably conquered over half the world, perhaps without firing a shot, by leveraging the threat of nuclear annihilation. During such a campaign, the homeland would have likely been safe from attack or invasion, as it was even in the midst of WWII. Should we have used this clear advantage to neutralize the burgeoning Soviet menace when we had the chance? Or was winning the Cold War through long attrition and proxy wars, as was done, the best option under the circumstances.
To me, a fascinating point of debate, and I welcome all your thoughts.