I'm also wondering to what extent this is true when anti-nuclear bleating about the Middle East is in fashion. (To what extent is it simply another chance to bash and want to disarm and destroy Israel?)

It makes me want to look again at my copy of “Dialogue”,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product…

and consider how much of the propaganda projects in this book could be revived now, as well as applied toward “climate change” [rolling eyes].

At least, I doubt ObamaCo would be so pathetic as to seek a re-run of the movie, “The Day After.”

Just to make the point clearer: Russia to allow pre-emptive nukes

US defense paper justifies use of nuclear weapons

AFP, WASHINGTON

Monday, Sep 12, 2005

A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to “prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively.”

The document, titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and dated March 15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001, attacks, a defense official said.

New US rules for first nuclear strike

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that allows commanders to request presidential approval to pre-empt an attack by a nation or terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction.

The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document was written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff but has not been approved by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. It would update nuclear weapons rules and procedures to reflect a pre-emption strategy announced by the Bush White House in December 2002.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the US would “respond with overwhelming force” to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the US, its forces or allies, and said “all options” would be available to the president. The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for the use of nuclear weapons.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander…

Good thing Obama made the world safer by wanting to get rid of that pesky missile defense shield system designed to protect against first strike capabilities.

A) It does not work…

B) If it did work, we would have a Nuclear war within twenty years of it being deployed, the people behind the shield would start a Nuclear war knowing/thinking that they were invulnerable.

Come on, now. Agitation for “peace” and “disarmament” is directed only at the West and especially the Evil USA, after all. Besides, the West and especially the Evil USA is forcing the poor, sweet, innocent, misunderstood, victim-of-the-West-and-especially-the-Evil-USA Russians to practice defensive annexation and other forms of potential and real aggression.

Even in such an alternative universe, we would still see occasional resort to war.

It's also assuming we're in some (typically lefty) alternative universe to assume we can eliminate war.

Good thing Obama made the world safer by wanting to get rid of that pesky missile defense shield system designed to protect against first strike capabilities. At least some possibility of saner heads may be prevailing, as the article references “grumbling in Moscow over U.S. moves to modify plans for a missile shield near Russia's borders rather than ditch the idea outright.”

And who, exactly, should they nuke one of their non-nuclear equipped neighbors (a very real scenario), is going to then act as the enforcer and nuke them back? Is the UN going to provide authorization for a retaliatory strike? Of course not.

And we haven't even talked about the weapon of mass destruction that is truly more powerful in the ability to kill at large scale – biologicals. They just don't make as impressive an entry, and so do not get news cycles when discussed by politicians, so they don't get discussed much.

You REALLY want to save the planet? Work to outlaw biological weapons. They are the ones that a small group of people really could use to cause world-wide mass death. But outlawing them effectively cannot happen either, for the same reasons as for nuclear weapons. You cannot stop countries and people from creating such tools.

History teaches us one thing very clearly, and that is no weapon of warfare has EVER successfully been banned.

History also teaches us that a six kiloton bomb will level a mid-size city and kill a couple hundred thousand people. The thing with Nukes is that they make for great defense, but are totally useless on the offense. Any country that uses Nukes on the offense is pretty much guaranteed to be turned in a Nuclear Wasteland.

Nukes, the weapon that we dare not use…

Why? What possible reason would any sane person have to assume that? Just because it sounds good? History teaches us one thing very clearly, and that is no weapon of warfare has EVER successfully been banned.

You might as well ask us to assume there are unicorns. It is pure fantasy. That is the problem with the Utopian dream-based policies favored by hyper-Liberals. Despite how good they make one feel to dream about, they have no basis in reality.

The whole point of the League of Nations and then the U.N. was driven by the same mind-set. That hasn't worked out as planned, has it?

Wars during the 2nd half of the 20th Century and the past 9 years indicate that possessing nuclear weapons is not a deterrent to or an impediment to starting a conventional war.

That's not true…

Since 1945, no one has invaded a nuclear armed state, Shrub and his cronies despite being eager for war (only started two in eight years) did not invade North Korea.

Now that may just be that it's only been sixty odd years since we have had nukes, and we have been lucky or it could be that the Thomas Friedman adage that “Countries that have McDonalds don't go to war against each other” should be modified to “Countries that have Nukes don't go to war against each other”