You are the one who started the ad-hominem attack suggesting I am blind, hence I respond with an ad-hominem attack.
I can determine true from false because I looked at the available evidence (in form of video footage from 'atomic explosions' and determined that they were fake (which is really really easy to see).
Ergo, I am not blind.
From the fake footage, I concluded that the atomic bomb was war propaganda by the Allies. Once the Russian's picked that up they just did the same thing. The US could not allow itself to get caught lying, so they pretended that these weapons are real (though they are not).
Then, I looked up how a nuclear reactor works. It works because the enriched nuclear material is immersed in heavy water known as deuterium which has two neutrons instead of one. This drastically increase the chances that a neutron is knocked of the H20 molecule releasing some energy according to the atomic model of chemistry (which I also do not believe in, since it is based on assumptions that enable people to make reasonable predictions about molecular behavior, but do not necessarily represent what is actually occuring). Anyway, a nuclear reactor works because with a reasonable probability some neutron is knocked off it's H20 molecule releasing energy in the form of heat. The problem is that the probability of this happening is so small that in the beginning they could not get enough nuclear reactions to maintain heat generation which suggests that the process is highly inefficient.
To increase the efficiency of the process a lot of developments had to occur to even get a light bulb to run on the output of an entire nuclear reactor. These steps occured well after WWII.
Therefore, I do not believe that it is plausible that a nuclear reaction with a small amount of nuclear material (50 kg for critical mass) can produce millions of times more energy than a nuclear reactor (which uses WAY more nuclear material than 50 kg) in a fraction of a millisecond, especially before we had the capacity to build nuclear reactors We build the first nuclear reactor to produce electricity on December 20th 1951 which is more than full six years after Nagasaki was fire bombed (there is actual evidence for fire bombing of Nagasaki, which is what the Allies did in Germany also - so we know that that is the real cause for Nagasaki's destruction).
A nuclear reactor can produce some energy in a long period of time. The parameters of the nuclear reaction in a reactor cannot be reproduced in a single bomb. At the same time, the bomb is supossed to have more output than a nucelar reactor and is supposed to produce that output in the fraction of a millisecond which given the process of nuclear fission is impossible because the math just does not add up.
These pieces of information coupled with the fact the all the WWII nuke footage and thereafter is fake casts serious doubt on the hypothesis that nukes are real.
Since nukes have never ever been used and I would not trust governments to do the right and rational thing ever, I think we'd already would have nuked ourselves if nukes existed. Luckily, they don't. So there is no need to worry and you can stop consuming the North Korea fear porn right now, because that is all it is. The same fearporn that was used during the Cold War (gotta hide under the desk to survive the nuke kids) to scare people into surrendering their taxes for 'safety and security' from non-existant threats.
However, if you insist there is still some credible evidence that suggests that nukes exists I invite you to type in: "nukes aren't real" on youtube and watch the clip about nukes that shows you many more inconsistencies of the nuke story and why it is utter bullcrap. Then I invite you to double check that information (like I have) by getting your hands on some nuclear physics text books and to learn what nuclear fission is and how it allegedly works. Then confirm that the model they claim they used can allow for a nuclear reaction with 50kg of nuclear material that produces a couple of 1000 kilotons of energy in 0.00000000001 seconds. Then I invite to extrapolate the model assumption onto the real world application of a nuke and tell me how you would engineer something that seems to be physically impossible according to the model of nuclear fission.
Now, that being said, I am pretty sure that I understand the difference between a hypothetical mathematical model to explain something and reality. They are two different things and since I work in a research institute at a University in Europe it is my job to be able to tell the difference. If I would not be able to do that, then my decision could lead to certain medications being prescribed to people leading to their death because I have wrongfully assumed that my mathematical computer model accurately predicts reality (they never do that). Which is why in my line of work, computer models are put to the test in cell-cultures before we even consider human studies.
Now, being a scientist I am also a skeptic. Therefore, I apply the same rigor to all things I am being presented with as I would at work. Ergo, I check the mathematical assumptions, compute likelihood ratio's based on existing data in order to find optimal possible solutions before I put them to the test.
Since the math behind a nuke does not work out and I have never seen a real nuclear explosion in my life I am unwilling to believe in nukes until one of them is literally dropped on my head or explodes in front of my own eyes (video footage will not convince me, since nowadays we have CGI that is so life like that I am pretty sure they could fake it effectively now. However, luckily they could not fake well in 1950, their footage is actually laughably bad).
To conclude,
I have more confidence in my judgement than yours, because unlike you I am able to address the arguments of my opponents in rational argument, instead of calling them names, which suggests that I am more intelligent than you. Additionally, I have spend a considerable amount of time to investigate this issue which I propose you haven't and therefore, I am more willing to believe in myself than in you.
Have a good day.