[JumpCrisscross]

> used nuclear bombs in anger

Using a new weapon to end an existing war is one thing. Using a new weapon to start new wars is another. That delineation is independent of one's judgement of the weapon per se. They're both bad. But one is worse than the other.

The U.S. had the opportunity to go on a mission of global military conquest. There was military support for nuclear war with Russia and China. The United States didn't do that, and I think that's a unique and admirable trait.

[monocasa]

Would you apply the same reasoning to any other country that used nukes to "end an existing war"?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Would you apply the same reasoning to any other country that used nukes to "end an existing war"?

Yes, using nukes defensively is less bad than using it to start a war. That doesn’t mean I support the use of nukes.

WWII was unique in starting with no nukes and ending with them. We also didn't yet understand the long-term ramifications of the weapon's use.

[monocasa]

So which conflicts since WWII would you OK the "defensive" use of nuclear weapons?