No, I haven't taken the time and effort to start at scratch with you, and explain the differences between ending man's greatest conflagration in history, a total global war devouring the entire planet, when death was measured in the many tens of millions and death camps alone executed civilians by the millions, with two atomic bombs dropped on the unapproachable island enemy of Imperial Japan who engaged us in the most massive blood bath in human history by launching a sneak attack on us when we were at peace, meant to wipe out our military capabilities,-—versus the soon to be Cold War stand-off with multiple nuclear powers, a world not at war, and an understanding that nuclear bombs were a deterrent only to prevent another WWII, and in that new post WWII world, us suddenly nuking North Vietnam in 1964 to avoid sending troops over there in an optional conventional war, thereby signaling that America had gone renegade, left the reservation, and was ready to use nukes in place of troops at places that we decided that we wanted to intervene, deciding on who was President.
When we had a President Eisenhower, it might mean no troops, no nukes, no Vietnam War, a little election comes along of a JFK, and suddenly the world sees mushroom clouds in various places of interest to that current American politician.
You have more patience than I do.
The world has worked as well as it has for the post-WWII period simply because everyone assumes, regardless of their shrieking otherwise, that the USA is rational and “good.”
If the USA had a justified reputation for random use of nukes to avoid inconvenience, every other nation would have excellent reason to take us out.
The world would be a very different place, and not an improved one.
Recently finished a dystopic book, Caliphate, in which the USA more or less becomes this violent genocidal nation, after multiple US cities are destroyed by terrorist nukes. It ain’t a pretty picture.