Well here is one take on the UUSBS, though it does not focus particularly on Galbraith:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/February%202008/0208bombing.aspx

It seems pretty clear to me that strategic bombing had a decisive effect in the Pacific theater, even if one does not count the nuclear bombs that were dropped.

Counting those, the conclusion is pretty obvious.

It is also a bit specious to claim that the bombings were merely “strategic” for as the war progresses the bombing became more tactical than strategic, that is to say, the bombing grew to be more in support of ground objectives as the war went on.

Certainly SAC was instrumental in the cold war.

The USSBS is controversial. It is more the intent and control of information of New Deal leftists like Galbraith rather than a particular example of competence. People like Galbraith had a clear pro-socialist and pro-USSR bias.
That academics have not revised it says more about their agenda than it does about the validity of the study.

But Galbraith has been pretty much wrong about anything he has addressed as both an econimit ad as an intellectual.