Poor, naive me. Here I thought we'd gotten past the Mutually Assured Destruction mindset. How wrong was I??
I can understand the rationale of wanting to hit back with everything we have, but do nuclear weapons really need to be part of the equation? I find it mindboggling that policymakers seem not to understand that nuclear weapons are a lose/lose proposition for both sides.
WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration strategy announced Tuesday calls for the use of pre-emptive military and covert force before an enemy unleashes weapons of mass destruction, and underscores U.S. willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons for chemical or biological attacks on U.S. soil or against American troops overseas.
The strategy introduces a more aggressive approach to combating weapons of mass destruction, and comes as the nation prepares for a possible war with Iraq.
A version of the strategy that was released by the White House said the U.S. will "respond with overwhelming force," including "all options," to the use of biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapons on the nation, its troops or its allies.
If nuclear weapons are employed, what of the after-effects? The fallout, lingering radiation, long-term health effects, etc.? To think that these issues will not come back to haunt us is naive in the extreme.
No, I'm not an engineer or a physicist- I'm a history major without a clear understanding of the overarching technical issues involved here. I do know enough, however, to be alarmed that our government would even consider the use of nuclear weapons.
