Wrong.
Nukes are and always were illegal chemical and thermal weapons that are banned.
Not wrong. There is no law against the US, UK, France, Israel, or India having nuclear weapons.
Bullets do not have to "cleanly kill" in that they usually just go right through, with only a temporary wound.
That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.
Gun shots in war are almost never lethal anymore.
I presume you mean illegal for soldiers. They are perfectly legal for civilians.
But more to the point, NATO trying to put nukes on the Russian border is in violation of several treaties, and is as bad as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
NATO is doing no such thing.
There are also no treaties that would prevent it. But NATO has no plans to do such a thing despite the lack of treaties against it.
There will eventually be long range
conventional missiles placed in former Warsaw Pact countries. Russia will be free to whine about that if they like, but there are no treaties against it. The missiles are still being developed though, so it will be a few years.
That is a lie.
Japan DID offer to surrender.
Japan offered to surrender only
after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
The US just had broken off all negotiations, so would not accept it.
There were no negotiations.
The Japanese then sent the messages for surrender though the Soviets, since they still had an embassy in Japan.
No such messages were sent.
The US got the surrender messages, but told Stalin to stall them until after we could test out the new nuclear weapons.
No such messages were received.
We wanted to show them off for the benefit of the Soviets, and they also wanted to see them in action.
We wanted Japan to surrender.
Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no significant war impact,
Hiroshima was a huge military center that was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.
Nagasaki built Japan's largest warships.
HOW could their bombing at all be "justified" or "necessary"?
Easy. Japan was still refusing to surrender. Therefore we had the right to keep attacking military targets.
If you are saying they ended the war as demonstration of our nuclear power, that could much better have been done on an isolated land or water location, with Japanese scientist observers.
We preferred to hit military targets.
hitting cities, we made it impossible for the Japanese government to even know or evaluate what happened, because the bombs knocked out all communications.
Japan knew exactly what happened.
And the point is the Ukraine had violated their treaty by TRYING to get NATO nukes. The fact NATO refused does not alter the crime by the Ukraine.
No such treaty, no such attempt, and no such crime.
And the Russian invasion WAS warranted by the murder of ethnic Russians by the Ukraine, the oil thefts, the treaty violations, and finally, by the Ukraine cutting off negotiations. That was essentially an act of war.
No such murders, no such thefts, no such treaty violations, and cutting off negotiations is not an act of war.
The only aggressors here are the Russians, who are militarily incompetent, but are pretty good at raping and murdering civilians.