"Should"? I don't think that was a "should" statement. I think it was a cause and effect statement. Bad people in power leads to suffering in the population. This observation goes way back, at least as far as the book of Ecclesiastes: "Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child, and your princes feast in the morning!"

Will the US suffer for putting bad people in power? Almost certainly, even if it doesn't come to the level of being nuked.

> Should the US be nuked because ~51% voted for Trump (or Bush, Obama, Clinton, pick the one you hate)?

During a declared wartime? It happens. I mean, what can you do? It's war!

The allies didn't care that there were non-nazis when they carpet-bombed Dresden, nor did the US care that Hiroshima and Nagasaki possibly had large numbers of people against the Japanese rulers.

So, yeah, should the US enter a hot war against a sovereign government that can strike back, that government will not care that only 51% of the population voted for the current US government.

That's how war works, and that's why no one (short of actually insane blood-thirsty killers who are in it only to see corpses) wants to escalate a cold war to a hot war. If a population collectively elects leaders who provoke an escalation into a hot war, they can't very well be surprised at the response.

OTOH, the US voting population has not had first-hand experience with a hot boots-on-the-ground-invasion war, hence they can be so cavalier about their choice of rulers. They haven't seen first-hand the result of engaging in war.

The Palestinians and Israelis, however, have plenty of first-hand experience of the horrors of war, so those bastards have no excuse for supporting pro-war leaders.