In order for the nuclear deterrent to have any meaning someone in the command structure of the nuclear power must have the authority to launch the weapons. There can be no assurance that such a person will continue to be a rational actor and will not have an episode of madness. That will continue to be the danger we are living under.

Perhaps? But then Stalinism was still just a perceived threat; nuclear bombs and massive firebombing was the hard face of unbearable reality!

Besides the nuclear bombs were allegedly dropped more for Stalin's benefit as anything else; given there was a conditional Japanese surrender on the table, and the firebombing was more destructive, with greater loss of life!

Moreover, America was never ever going to sacrifice a million lives, just to get an unconditional surrender out of the then truly hated implacable Nipponese military!
Rhrosty.

A little re-writing of history here? Not a lot of notice can be taken of this article without some actual evidence of what the writer claims.

It was Russia that beat Japan...Doh!!

Hiroshima for Dummies?

Ever since the atomic bombs were exploded over the two Japanese cities, historians, social scientists, journalists, World War II veterans, and propagandists have engaged in intense controversy about the events of August 1945. It was a constant in the ideological Cold War- were they the prelude to the Cold War? The continuing controversy has revolved around such questions as:
• Were the two atomic bombs necessary primarily to avoid an invasion of Japan in November 1945?
• How decisive were they to the Japanese decision to surrender?
• Was the Soviet declaration of war and the Red Army sweep through Manchuria decisive in compelling Tokyo to surrender?
• Did Truman authorize the use of atomic bombs for diplomatic-political reasons-- to intimidate the Soviets--or was his major goal to force Japan to surrender and bring the war to an early end?
• If ending the war quickly was the most important motivation of Truman and his advisers to what extent did they see an “atomic diplomacy” capability as a “bonus”?
• To what extent did subsequent justification for the atomic bomb exaggerate or misuse wartime estimates for U.S. casualties to invade Japan?
• Did President Truman make a decision to use the bomb or did he inherit an irreversible decision that had already been made?
•
• If the United States had been more flexible about the demand for “unconditional surrender” by explicitly or implicitly guaranteeing the emperor would Japan have surrendered earlier than it did?
• Was the bombing of Nagasaki unnecessary? To the extent that the atomic bombing was critically important to the Japanese decision to surrender would it have been enough to destroy one city?
• Was the dropping of the atomic bombs morally justifiable?
The release of masses of hitherto classified/secret documents and the extensive debates of historians have not conclusively resolved all these issues. The sequence of events is fixed and we cannot remove any to speculate on another outcome. But we can be certain that it would have been different if the Soviet Union and not US had occupied Japan.

Yes/No/Maybe Leslie

Your leftwing rhetorical questions fail:

Truman made the right decision in authorising the dropping of both Bombs - on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. https://youtu.be/ZBmSTK8JALk

And thank Christ Stalin did not get the opportunity to bestow his genocidal talents on Japan