1945, after wave upon wave of catastrophic loss, including the sinking of their main battle fleet, the incineration of their cities by conventional weapons, the deaths of millions of their soldiers, sailors, and pilots, and the imposition of starvation by blockade.
You do that to Arabia and Pakistan, and then, if they don't surrender to our occupation nuke 'em, yes, I agree that would work.
The comprehensive and total defeat and subjugation of the Japanese nation involved more - much, much more - that the two atomic bombs.
Here's the point. If the loss of four carriers at Midway, MacArthur's Island Hopping campaign, Curtis LeMay's firebombing of most of Japan's civilian infrastructure, the great Marianas Turkey Shoot, and all the rest, hadn't induced Imperial High command to surrender...
Just maybe, it was the nukes.
It took Hirohito personally broadcasting his message to get the military high command to give up.
So I conclude, nukes are powerful.
Note, too. How peaceful do you think a military occupation of Japan would've been, in the absence of nukes?
You know, to learn lessons about military occupation of any erstwhile caliphate -- as though the lessons of Iraq and Syria aren't clear enough.
Incidentally, if you think the rest of the world hates the US now? Imagine if we tried to impose starvation by blockade on the Middle East.
Who would enforce an embargo on the sale of oil by Saudi Arabia, for instance?