Wait - you think the solution to some people having a lower standard of living and others being persecuted is to kill them all?

Nukes usually don't wipe out entire countries, especially tactical nukes.

I'm far from convinced that using nukes in the Korean War would've been a good move, but equating it with "kill[ing] them all" is completely dishonest. What's your goal in this debate, and is it served by dishonest rhetoric?

My comment is in the context of:

> That USA didn't nuke China in 1950 or 1951. Would have solved a lot of problems for generations of people.

> USA dropping nukes probably would have been the better outcome for humanity.

Both of which I read as an expansive campaign of "nuking China"

USA dropping nukes would have prevented the convention against using nukes in wars from being started. I think there's a pretty good chance we wouldn't have any civilization left by now if we went down that fork in history.

How is nuking Japan different from nuking Korea? Everybody agrees that forcing Japan to surrender with nukes was much better for everyone involved than a ground invasion.

When Japan was bombed, nobody else in the world had nuclear weapons, the US only had 2, and there were only a handful of people outside of the US seriously researching nuclear weapons and were still years away from a test. By 1950 the USSR had working nuclear bombs, had proven so with a nuclear test, and a dozen other countries had started their own nuclear weapons programs.

It's different almost by definition?

Because it was a once (twice!) off the impact and significance of it is amplified.