From what I understand of the bigger picture, Russia would have invaded if we didn’t and Japan didn’t surrender. Even if that wasn’t a factor, I don’t think Japan had the resources to re-arm without steel imports, which could easily be blocked since their navy was in tatters.

There is an argument to be made that…

I obviously would prefer a world without nuclear weapons all-together, so the fewer countries that have them the better. That being said if I had to pick a list of countries that could have nukes, I’d much rather it they be countries like the US and China, or hell even Iran, than North Korea. If you’re concerned about…

We killed more people dropping incendiary bombs on Tokyo than we did with both nuclear bomb attacks. Why was that more acceptable than nukes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_of_11_November_1918

One example of a negotiated surrender that didn’t work out so well.

Demonstrating the bomb on an uninhabited area was ruled out early as a) there would not have been structures to fully demonstrate the bomb’s effectiveness and b) there was a fear that the Japanese would truck American POWs to the bombing site if it was announced ahead of time.

The surrender terms the Japanese government was trying to secure through Russian envoys would have left the Imperial Japanese government in power and allowed them to “de-militarize” on their own terms. That was (understandably) unacceptable to the British and Americans after the experience with post-WWI Germany. We…

If Japan had the ability to Nuke the US, they would have during Pearl Harbor. Negotiated surrender often just leads to kicking the problem down the line for the next generation.

For the same reason why you don’t give us access to your bank account.

No they couldn’t. At least not effectively.

NK shouldn’t have nukes because NK is run by an unchecked madman who will order the execution of anybody who resists his every whim. Say what you will about Donald, Vladimir, Theresa, Shira Modi, Netanyahu, and the rest of the world leaders who have nukes under their control, they all have checks and balances. They…

Currently I wouldn’t. Retroactively, given everything we knew, absolutely. Play it out. What would the advantage of not nuking Japan during WWII been? Given that our prior bombing campaigns had comparable civilians death tolls and we would have had to subsequently invade the Japanese mainland amphibiously, I think it…

Why shouldn’t NK have nukes?

Still kicking that dead horse? We nuked a country with full validity like 70+ years ago. We dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan just recently without Trump’s approval or opinion. How old are you?

You really can’t come up with a reason why some countries are trusted with nukes and others are not? I hope your job does not involve any sort of critical thinking, because this one is a layup.

You aren’t great at debate.

For the same reason you don’t give everyone a gun.

Excellent rebuttal. You do realize that the alternative was just firebombing their cities into submission before a full scale invasion? Casualties from our other bombing campaigns of civilian centers were comparable. What is your argument against it?

Few people remember the day when Donald Trump ordered those nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.

The technology exists. You can’t uninvent it. Now you just have to decide who is safe enough to have it. NK isn’t on the top of my list.

Our nuking of Japan was perfectly sound. We have a president, not a dictator. This means there are checks and balances.