Every time someone brings up "wants to wipe out xyz", I wonder how that would play out. North Korea wants to nuke the US and SK, Iran wants to nuke Israel, Pakistan wants to nuke India, etc.
But playing the scenario in your head leaves to a simple conclusion: If either NK or Iran would deploy nukes, it would be their end. It is likely that the US will remain the only nation on this planet who dropped nukes on civilians.
Actually, none of the countries you mentioned want to nuke any other. It's all propaganda, some from the potential nukers, most of it by those on the receiving end.
While technically true, in Hiroshima were multiple military headquarters and Nagasaki were industrial city and shipyard. Just saying there there was a bit more reasoning behind the selection then "where we could kill the most civilians".
Yes, there definitely were more factors that went into that decision. But destroying factories and shipyards in populated cities wasn't the primary factor that went into the choice of weapon.
If you were the PM of Israel, would you stake the lives of 6m people on that? It would be Iran's end, but it would be too late for Israel if it came to that.
Every nation has to trust the country with nukes that they won't invade or destroy them. If you were Iran, would you trust the US not to try to invade or topple your country?
Iran isn't alone with the rhetoric of 'destroy your enemies'. North Korea and the US sell the same story, just the enemy changes. Whether the enemy is Israel, the US, or the arbitrary definition of a terrorist, the sell is ultimately a strategy to sustain support for military spending. It's hard to defend vast military spending when you have a poverty problem in your country - unless you can say you have enemies to defend against.
