"Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is the only country known to have used two of those in a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, just as the war was ending and the enemy was surrendering."

Actually the statement that they were surrendering is erroneous. Peace overtures were being felt out before Hrioshima, with the last being the Potsdam Declaration. This was rejected by Prime Minister Suzuki with the following statement...

"The only thing to do is just kill it with silence. We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."

Now consider the time that this is occurring. The armed forces of the Empire of Japan have, for four years (and for other nations like Britain, Holland, France and China, even sooner), showed that they will fight for every last scrap of land, and die trying. To be taken captive was a grave dishonour, while death in service to the Emporer, a shoulders highest achievement. Predictions for a conventional land invasion like Normandy were predicted to cost millions of allied troop lives, based on the experiences that they had witnessed first hand over the war.

Even when the first bomb was dropped, there was resistance to accept the terms provided, due to the belief that the United States could not have more then one atomic bomb. This was believed due to the difficulty of constructing one at the time from Japan's own research team. Even when Nagasaki was bombed, and the USSR invaded Manchuria days afterwards, there was resistance to accepting the Allies terms. 50% of the cabinet wanted the terms changed to allow Japan to disarm itself, and try it's own war criminals, and there to be no occupation of Japan. All of the cabinet demanded that the emperor's position not be touched. In fact, if the emperor's position of power could not been guaranteed, there was no opposition to continuing the war to the very end.

There's a lot of things that the United States, I mean Country A's, foreign policy can be lambasted for, especially as of late. But to revise history to fit a narrative is no better then those that gloss over the failings of the past when stating it was superior to today. To do so places your argument on a foundation of fine sand, ready to crumble the moment someone blows in facts that contradict your statements, like usaar has done in the statement below mine.