Politics: Nuclear Weapons Anyone? Anyone?
The Washington Times is reporting a little bit of old and a little of new information. The Bush administration is prepared to tap into our nuclear aresenal if biological or chemical weapons are used on the field of battle.
This brings up an important point: While they are often (carelessly) lumped together in the Weapons of Mass Destruction category, nuclear weapons and chem/bio weapons are very different. They all represent an unquestionable threat to life, but nuclear weapons have been and should remain an absolute weapon of last resort. There is no way to calculate the devastation from a nuclear strike. A U.S. decision to use nuclear weapons if, say, Saddam Hussein were to use a chemical weapon, would lead to destruction on an enormous scale. Just like that. With the stroke of a pen. US policy is now to use nuclear weapons against a meaningless, well-contained dictator in the most politically and culturally sensitive region of the world. Nice.
The Washington Times is reporting a little bit of old and a little of new information. The Bush administration is prepared to tap into our nuclear aresenal if biological or chemical weapons are used on the field of battle.
This brings up an important point: While they are often (carelessly) lumped together in the Weapons of Mass Destruction category, nuclear weapons and chem/bio weapons are very different. They all represent an unquestionable threat to life, but nuclear weapons have been and should remain an absolute weapon of last resort. There is no way to calculate the devastation from a nuclear strike. A U.S. decision to use nuclear weapons if, say, Saddam Hussein were to use a chemical weapon, would lead to destruction on an enormous scale. Just like that. With the stroke of a pen. US policy is now to use nuclear weapons against a meaningless, well-contained dictator in the most politically and culturally sensitive region of the world. Nice.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home