What makes dying by nuclear weapon worse than dying by non-nuclear weapon? 

Uhm...ever heard of radioactivity and what it can cause to the human body? 

North Korea is sane and knows what they are doing, who nuked two civillian cities here? North Korea wants to have a nuke in order to defend themselfs against american foreign policy agression. The nuke will make them more save, it means less spending on convential arms like operating 1-2 million soldiers a year which could go somewhere else like feeding its people or build electricty palnts etc.

japan attacked first ...let them apologize for pearl harbor first then we can consider apologizing for bombing them

Yes, I have.  But radiation poisoning is not the only horrific side effect of weapons of war, and also we are speaking in the context of America apologizing for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and at the time that was done the long-term radiation effects were very poorly understood if I recall correctly.  (Therefore, the government of the time didn't nuke despite being cognizant of the long-term effects they would inflict, meaning they don't need to apologize for that specific reason.)

If you think the North Korean government is by any standard a good government then...wow I don't even know what to say.

And nukes don't make you safe. For one, they make you a larger target.  Second, it's not like anyone can use one right now, not attacking or defending.  So they can't use them to protect themselves.  All they can do is shield you from other nukes but that's not much since there are plenty of other destructive weapons out there.  

As for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I've given the facts on this numerous times so here's the short short short version:  they were military targets, one a massive command center and the other a weapons and munitions manufacturing center as well as containing an armory.  They were not pure soft targets, they would have been bombed to oblivion in the event of an invasion anyway.  Please see the rest of the freaking thread for details.

Although the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base, was wrong, it was far less indefensible than the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki's civilian populations.

How can America justify having NOT dropped an atomic bomb on North Korean instead of engaging in the Korean War and NOT dropping a bomb on Hanoi prior to engaging in the Vietnam War? Wouldn't the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C., with all the names of those young men etched into the stone in small font, be much shorter had America nuked Hanoi much earlier instead of engaging in a protracted conflict? 

A number of things changed between WWII and that war.

For one, the US didn't *want* NK or NV to surrender, they just wanted their attempts to invade their southern counterparts to stop. 

Second, there's the MAD concept to consider.  The fear was always that the use of a nuke by either the first world or second world used a nuke, there would be an escalation of retaliation that would cause immense if not total destruction. 

Also, while terrible, those wars never reached anything even remotely approaching the devestation of WWII. 

And lastly, we had a far better understanding of radiation.  We couldn't nuke with tactical or heavy nuclear ordinance North Korea or North Vietnam, they were too close to our allies and the attacks would adversely effect them as well. 

In short, entirely different situations.  To just boil it all down to nuke=better than a prolonged conflict is to take a highly complex decision and reduce it down to a non-representative simplistic argument.

That make no sense? If Japan apologizes for pearl Harbor then they admit fault in the action and so should the reactions after. Basically, if Pearl Harbor was wrong and unjustified by the Japanese then everything following is their fault. We shouldn't apologize for anything