I've never heard a defense of nuclear weapons based on their ability to end wars, only as a weapon to prevent them. I think most policy makers are in agreement that use of a nuclear weapons means they have failed their primary purpose.
As for the "uniqueness" of nuclear weapons, there's an interesting parallel to the uniqueness of chemical weapons use in Syria. Even as conventional weapons are ripping the country to pieces, there is a heavy amount of focus on chemical weapons. I think it has to do with the desire to draw lines of acceptability somewhere, but an inability to draw lines on anything but a technological front.
> I've never heard a defense of nuclear weapons based on their ability to end wars, only as a weapon to prevent them.
TFA aside, it is generally accepted that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused Japan to surrender. Besides, the bomb was not invented until well into the war.
As for the "uniqueness" of nuclear weapons, there's an interesting parallel to the uniqueness of chemical weapons use in Syria. Even as conventional weapons are ripping the country to pieces, there is a heavy amount of focus on chemical weapons. I think it has to do with the desire to draw lines of acceptability somewhere, but an inability to draw lines on anything but a technological front.