No, I haven't taken the time and effort to start at scratch with you, and explain the differences between ending man's greatest conflagration in history, a total global war devouring the entire planet, when death was measured in the many tens of millions and death camps alone executed civilians by the millions, with two atomic bombs dropped on the unapproachable island enemy of Imperial Japan who engaged us in the most massive blood bath in human history by launching a sneak attack on us when we were at peace, meant to wipe out our military capabilities,-—versus the soon to be Cold War stand-off with multiple nuclear powers, a world not at war, and an understanding that nuclear bombs were a deterrent only to prevent another WWII, and in that new post WWII world, us suddenly nuking North Vietnam in 1964 to avoid sending troops over there in an optional conventional war, thereby signaling that America had gone renegade, left the reservation, and was ready to use nukes in place of troops at places that we decided that we wanted to intervene, deciding on who was President.
When we had a President Eisenhower, it might mean no troops, no nukes, no Vietnam War, a little election comes along of a JFK, and suddenly the world sees mushroom clouds in various places of interest to that current American politician.