darkSpyro

I do support the use of nukes when it leads to objectively better outcomes. For example, if Japan hadn't been bombed (and surrendered as a consequence) it would've been necessary for the US to invade it, and that would've caused a lot more damage for both sides. It was immoral and caused great harm to many, but it was the smart thing to do though it might be difficult to see that way.
The use of smaller tactical nukes would be preferred to avoid collateral damage, of course, but that depends on the situation.

I've noticed that when people talk about nukes they will almost invariably over-estimate their effects. This might be because of the idea that nukes are some mysterious wonder-weapons. There's nothing mysterious about them, it's just a really big bomb, the effects of which can be calculated, and it's not like anyone would just fling them around without careful consideration.

Also, people will always find some way to demonize the actions of the past, but aggression is never completely one-sided. Every action has a motivation and a reason behind it, always remember that.

Now, it might sound like I'm glorifying the use of nukes somehow, but that's not the case. I wouldn't want to see one in action, and luckily they are nearly useless as the current conflicts raging throughout the world aren't large enough to warrant their use.