....
By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons. But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

Nuclear weapons have only one value; deterrence. Aside from that they are of
no value to anyone. In today's world the use of a nuclear weapon would
accomplish nothing good but would bring about vast harm. Not something you
would actually want to use. Good for threatening but not for using.



This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights,
and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much. The problem with Reagan
was that none of us knew the truth about his mental deterioration the same
way the public was unaware of FDR's disability. I've lived in California for
over 30 years so I know all about Reagan. By the time he hit the White House
his peak was well past him and the slide into dementia started exactly when?
Some folks know but they don't want to spoil the idealistic picture of their
hero by spilling the beans. Suffice it to say that when a president can't
stay awake in cabinet meetings something is wrong besides just being sleepy.
I would venture to say if you can't stay awake for that kind of thing you
are no longer capable of being the president.


He said essentially what Obama is suggesting as a goal: that nuclear
weapons
are a scourge and should be completely eliminated from the earth. His
numerous arms-control initiatives were pointed in that direction.

Ideally, it would be a plus to eliminate nukes. Realistically, I don't see
it as possible because weak countries believe it's their only protection
against aggressors, like the US.

Read his memoir on the subject some time. This is a guy who knew
first-hand
what nuclear weapons do to the relations between countries and to the
risks
they face. You'll find that other presidents who had that same
understanding
felt the same way about it, but were less forthright about doing anything
about it. Mutually assured destruction, after all, seemed to work at the
time, and it would take an extraordinary amount of courage to go against
that principle.



No, not courage. Foolhardiness and stupidity is what it would take.
Unfortunately, it seems like there are a number of countries that are led by
people who are indeed too stupid to understand how MAD works and that would
therefore reduce the efficacy of the policy.


Hawke