The USA did it against Japan. Of course those were special circumstances, but all wars have their own set of special circumstances to some extent.

There’s also the argument that using nuclear weapons make sense when a nuclear state has a weaker conventional force that its opponent. Russia still has a pretty strong conventional force, but for example North Korea is in this position against most likely adversaries.

The irony is that if your defenses consist of, on the one hand, nuclear weapons, and on the other hand, pitchforks brandished by several farmers... You are going to be very, very respected.

Until someone calls your bluff, perhaps accidentally, and realizes much of the nuclear saber-rattling was just that. Of course, since it wasn't entirely a bluff, this is the easiest way to get a nuclear war going. (Get a country with nukes but limited conventional capabilities into a brinksmanship contest.)

> There’s also the argument that using nuclear weapons make sense when a nuclear state has a weaker conventional force that its opponent.

Facing the Warsaw Pact, the US never renounced first use of nuclear weapons.

Which is actually quite unfortunate, given that China, our closest rival, has an avowed "no first use" policy. Sanctity of human life and fundamental reciprocity would behoove us to at least, with respect to them, adopt an equivalent posture.

One might counterargue that in a fair fight (i.e. all-conventional), China might clean our clocks. And they certainly have lots of domestic political reasons to start a wholly unnecessary war.