To say that non-proliferation treaty has not worked is really a myth. The countries who have signed NPT as a non-nuclear power have not produced nuclear bombs. India, Pakistan and Israel never signed the treaty. The only reason Bush administration says NPT is not working is because it wants to have an excuse to attack any nation on the pretext that they are building Nuclear bombs. We have seen that in Iraq, and now onward to Iran. It is sad that the belligerent tone of Bush administration would make NPT useless. The purpose of NPT is to let the signatory nations use Nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but if they are not allowed to do that why would they stay in the pact?

Wow, but there's a lot of ignorance around here. First, a bit of history: We were the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, prior to any international treaties governing their proliferation. After the use of said weapons to end WWII, the US proposed a permanent ban on the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons, but were rebuffed by the USSR, since Stalin was soon going to be able to produce his own arsenal thanks to the espionage activities of the Rosenbergs, and since a non-nuclear USSR would not be able to embark on its goal of global conquest. So, Stalin got the bomb. Then China got it. Then the various European powers got it. At that point, the US proposed that we create a non-proliferation treaty to prevent further spread of nuclear arms. Since the advent of that treaty, India, Pakistan and Israel have successfully developed nuclear weapons (although Israel has never admitted to it nor conducted any tests), and North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Lybia and pretty much anyone who had access to a military budget that would support it has put programs in place to develop them. Needless to say, the non-proliferation treaties have worked about as well as the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

As for why we get to decide who has them, the calculus is a simple one: We're the ones who uncorked the genie, so we get to decide who gets to rub the lamp. Our criteria is simple, too: If the nation in question develops nuclear weapons, how will it use them? Israel, India and the NATO countries have used them to protect themselves from aggression. Pakistan has used its nukes to maintain parity with India. The presence of nuclear weapons in those states is a relatively stabilizing influence. Now, ask yourself if Iran, Iraq (under Saddam), Libya and North Korea could be trusted to keep the peace if they had them. If you answered anything but "no" you have the makings of a UN bureaucrat, but don't pat yourself on the back. It's not a compliment.

bsimon: You misunderstood my post. I am not advocating to bomb any place, not even with conventional weapons. All I am saying is that why Mr. Arkin is even asking such a question? Is it all right for a respectable journalist to even pose such a question? Would he dare to pose a similar question if we were talking about London or New York? The purpose of such question appears to be to keep providing us with new targets to keep us in a state of perpetual war. And, Mr. Arkin can even claim to be peacenick for not advocating a Nuclear attack but rather staying with the conventional warfare. Washington Post is supposed to be liberal paper I wonder what the right-wing papers are writing these days.

Make peace not war
Vote for Ron Paul

The point which is lost in all of this is the BOTH Obama and Clinton are willing to use force against another nation without any evidence that 1) it is effective; 2) it will not blowback; 3) it is legal in international law.

BOTH these clowns do not deserve to be President (whether anyone does is another matter.)

BOTH these clowns are willing to buy into the notion of using military force against Iran when there is ZERO - repeat ZERO - evidence that Iran has anything resembling a "nuclear weapons program." This is even MORE deceitful than the Bush lies about Iraq's "WMDs."

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only two people up as candidates for either party who have ANY clue concerning proper US foreign policy to handle either Iran or Al Qaeda.

Obama and Clinton are BOTH just "Bush lite".

masmanz writes
"Interesting question Mr. Arkin. Now suppose they are sitting around a campfire in London or New York. Would you even dare ask such a question? Is it all right if we ask our presidential candidates if they would like to Nuke those brown people in far away lands?"

masmanz, you fail to recognize that Mr Arkin does not argue against taking them out, he argues against taking them out with a nuclear weapon.

Or, to ask it differently, why are you so willing to nuke London or New York if a couple bad guys are meeting there? Why not use a conventional weapon and limit the destruction to a building or city block instead of taking out a couple square miles of buildings and civilians?

Interesting question Mr. Arkin. Now suppose they are sitting around a campfire in London or New York. Would you even dare ask such a question? Is it all right if we ask our presidential candidates if they would like to Nuke those brown people in far away lands?

1. Mr. Arkin fails to mention that Obama wants to attack Pakistan if he believes Bin Laden is hiding there. That, of course, might result with Pakistan being overthrown and turned into a radical Islamic state armed with 50-100 nuclear weapons. Not nice.

2. >>"That then would open the way for a healthy discussion about circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be used."<<

Nuthin' like a good 'ole healthy discussion on where, when to nuke some country or other. Heck, if you can't think of a good reason to use your nukes, what's the point of having 'em?

Gee, Mr Arkin. Maybe we should have a discussion on how the US might set an example of disarming a few of those 10,000+ nuclear monsters and set an example for the rest of the world to follow? Or would that be too radical?

Why is it OK for the USA to have hundreds of nukes? Is this meant to make the world safe. How does the USA decide which nations should or should not have nukes?

The USA is dangerous and immature when it comes to exercising its military power. If Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of the USA making very poor military decisions why should it assume that it will make a wise decision by stopping Iran from having nukes.

Why doesn't the USA set an example by getting rid of its nuke arsenal? Surely, it wont miss a hundred or so nukes being put out with the trash. Would this set the world a good example?

The USA is saying: Do as I say and not as I do.

Yerlame,

1) nobody is born a terrorist
2) somebody's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter: the USA became independent thanks to ...terrorists as labeled by the British occupiers AND Nazis called french resitance terrorists who were incarcerated and/or executed without trial.

Terrorists exists for a reason. It has ALWAYS been that way. Usualy, they don't just pop up like that and EVERYTIME, they make their motivations available to everyone to see. But in the US, who bothers? people stupidly buy into the "they hate us because of our freedom" CRAP!

May be one day, IRAQI "terrorists" will target the USA. Hopefully, that will never happen for obvious reasons. But if that happens, what will you say? Oh, I know: "they hate us because of our freedom".

Some food for thoughts: OIL, GREED, COLONIALIZM

What makes you think that a country that was built on slavery, a country that had some of its people as 2nd class citizen less than 50 years ago, will care about freing people or building democrash*t around the world???? WAKE UP FOOL!

[Clark]
>Even if in some fantasy world all of 'em
>[Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, Hugo
>Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the
>Castro brothers and Voldemort]
>were sitting around a campfire, only bin
>Laden has committed a crime

Dear Clark, Voldemort has confessed to the cold blodded murder of Harry's parents and he was seen ordering the murder of Cedric Diggory by millions of people around the globe - I do think that would count as a crime ;)

Seriously, though, you might also reconsider your statement with respect to Kim Jong-il.

Dear Mr. Arkin,

I don't know if it's "the dog days of summer" or what, but political creativity is sure suffering in DC. I mean, maybe it's not your fault you can't concoct a hypothetical that would at least inspire a chuckle, if not aide those politicians with foot in mouth disease and spark a bit of their grey matter into a semblance of functionality....but hey....WANT TO USE NUKES?? LET ME TELL YOU HOW TO USE THEM EFFECTIVELY! WANT TO "ENGAGE" STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM IN A DIALOGUE? START WITH A FORMAL INVITATION!

Like this...."hypotheticly" speaking...

-------------------
INVITATION TO ANTAR

To: Mahamood Amanidijad,

Greetings! I represent an internationally subsidized risk minimalization program otherwise commonly known as the Global Nuclear Free Zone Initiative, and we cordially invite you to help us save planet Earth for future generation's enjoyment.

Humanity is in a dillema...Too many pissed off preachers and too many nukes= questionable future of life on Earth...all life.

However, an elegant solution has recently been found to resolve this grave and pressing issue.

You'll be joined by your fellow pissed off preachers across the globe. And obviosly those not pissed off will not be invited to travel. You are among a select group. Congratulations!

Your travel accomodations will consist of the following:

1 dose of dramamine (for motion sickness)
1 roll of duck tape
1 standard issue NASA surplus spacesuit w/ O2
1 intercontinental ballisic missile (Nuclear tipped)

Seating for 5 or more can be arranged ( with additional rolls of duck tape to strap your party to the launch vehicle securely.

No in flight movies available at this time, sorry. But you'll have an excellent view of Earth as you are shot into space, and you'll get a real good suntan upon arival on the surface of Sol. Scenic flybys of Venus and Mercury en rout.

Unfortunately no food service is available in flight at this time, so pack a lunch.

Your travel to point of departure will also be provided free of charge via Company chartered rendition flight non-stop from anywhere the hole you crawled out of is located.

Opon anticipated approval by all concerned nations, you will be notified of launch windows and picked up by the air rendition Company staff.

Please do be courteous to your flight attendants, as an large electric Tazer charge may be applicable unto you for thorozine coctails and extra duck tape to wrap your yap down tight if your eminent pissed-offness causes disturbance en rout to launch area.

I believe if we "86" all you Pissed off Preachers slap off the planet Earth, humanity won't need worry about "End Times".

Curious minds want to know if you'll do a small service for mankind.

See, my friends and I are about to table a proposal to every UN Ambassador on Earth, and remind them of their "Responsibility to Protect" humanity at large. So please reply as soon as possible, so we can include you on the flight list to oblivion.

That is to say...your presence has been requested.

Glad I am to be able to offer you this once in a lifetime offer to help save the planet.

Thank you for your interest.

Ill Regards,

EJ, CEO - Infidels R US, Inc.

------------END--------

I figure if we can get all the members of the N-weapons club to donate a few of their toys, we'll be able to accomodate everyone.

Cheers.

Geeze this article is so off the mark.

First. Suggesting that Hillary's comments made in regards to a "hypothetical" should be the same as those made about Iran is absurd. Yes the nuclear option should be thought about before being used, as would be the case in the hypothetical. And, no, it is not appropriate for Iran because in the she felt it should, in this case, be take off the table. That is what presidents do -- they decide when it is appropriate to use nukes. It isn't flip flop. It is common sense.

And sorry, she isn't attacking Obama either. His comment that it is never appropriate does seem naive in the world at this point in time. If we could eliminate nukes I'm all for it, but the world is not as idealized as the theory you read in your text books. And unfortunately this means that the nuke card has to be one of the cards you keep in your deck.

This article feels like bad spin. I didn't see that the blogosphere labeled her a flip flopper. Perhaps fox news took a pot shot, along with a few conservative pundits but if you are going to count that as the blogosphere please cite your sources so that the rest of us bloggers can respond.

Here is the mistake most people are making in this discourse. The conflict or disagreement between HRC and Obama has nothing to do with foreign policy. It has everything to do with political strategy, precooked by HRC team that one of the ways to knock out Obama in the race is to bottle him up in a straitjacket as inexperienced candidate that is not prime for the job as the Executive President of only Super-power in the world. HRC saw an opening and pounced without thinking through its consequences. The outcrop of the spat renders HRC as establishment candidate who is out to defend status quo.

This contest is going to be defined as, those for preserving the status quo should vote for HRC and others that favor new approach to things in Washington should vote for Obama. The attempt to back Obama into a corner as inexperienced for the job comes with unintended consequences of depicting HRC as establishment candidate. I would be mystified if this is the outcome HRC and her team bargained for.

Obama's position on the use of Nuke and meeting rogue Heads of States would be easily explained away to the average electorate in a commonsensical fashion. HRC and her team made a huge mistake by attacking Obama this early in the game. It gave Obama ample time to make his case to the electorate months before the actual votes are cast. Obama and his team are laying serious groundwork to tie HRC as another Bush-Cheney dressed-up in Democrat clothing.

Mr Arkin,

Early Warning is best when you report on matters of national intelligence, and somewhat weaker when you examine politics. Your question for the next debate isn't hypothetical, it's sophistic.

Nuclear weapons, like other instruments of national policy, are neither inherently good nor bad. Their employment is based on sophisticated cost-benefit analysis, conducted by authoritative, responsible leaders, with final judgment left to elected officials.

Politicians on the campaign trail are unsuited to conduct detailed, objective assessments balancing national objectives and priorities. Campaign pressure to appeal to a mass electorate is inimical to balanced, objective judgment.

The next president must employ any and all means to guard the national interest, at exactly the right time to act. Preemption requires no more...and no less.

Thank you for this piece Mr. Arkin. I agree with an above post that journalism needs more of this kind of candor!

You have put this issue simply so that people can understand the complexity of it and especially how Obama has managed to somehow silently, stealthily, necessarily and cleverly bring this issue to light.

Everyone was so quick to jump to conclusions and judge Obama, yet once they stepped back and realized what it was that he was trying to do, they regretted their quick judgement and finally saw in him- leadership.

Thank-you for your insight.

Tancredo got it wrong.Terrorism ,the last time I checked is global and not localized to any individual nation state.Our missiles are useless if you can't find a target.There are no defined theaters of combat.Our missiles are totally and completely irrelevant.

The type of logic used by the author is the logic most likely to result in a nuclear attack against this country. Anyone with half a brain knows that use of a nuclear weapon should be limited to an absolute, no alternative, emergency. However, if we unilaterally declare we will never use nuclear weapons, we signal terrorists that they can use a nuclear weapon against us without fear of retaliation by a nuclear weapon of our own. That, quite simply, is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

See, polls haven't shown Hillary which way to go yet. She only makes up her mind on important issues when the zeitgeist has spoken.

It'll be fun when she's president! you don't like the way things are going, manipulate the data and she'll change her mind! What a country!

Thank you for stepping out so clearly and exposing the hypocricy and double-speak HRC and her camp love to engage in. In one minute they are for something, in the next they are not. They eschew discussing hypotheticals and yet they engage in answering them. What is a hypothetical, if not the whole process of running for the POTUS. You imagine yourself a hypothetical president and imagine all hypothetical scenarios that may or may not come before you. HRC touts her experience yet fails every time the experience test is put to her. To date, she has offered us nothing coherent, unless she plans to go back to the Clinton Presidential Library and recycle her husband's past policies. We are in the 21st century. Bill was relevant a century ago.
Thank you for offering an honest assessment. Journalism needs more of this kind of candor.

People keep on just lying about what Obama said, either by completely misquoting him or taking what he said out of context. This has to stop. Obama said form THE VERY START that he would give Musharrif the chance to act. If he did not or could not Obama would act. Very straightforward and he hasn't deviated from that point one bit DCJoe - so get it right. On the "let's talk" issue...the original question from the YouTube debate was "WOULD YOU?" not "HOW WOULD YOU?" If you take the question at face value and the questioner certainly said he appreciated that Obama did that, the diplomatic legwork is assumed to have been done. The preconditions the questioner referred to were, for example, our demands that they stop their enrichment, etc. It's not liket Kim Jung or Ahmadinajad or Chavez were coming over for a beer and watching a football game. Get it right people. Obama hasn't, nor should he, back track from anything he's said on the issues. Back tracks come after you've already screwed up, which he hasn't. Clarifications come from answering direct media questions after the statements have been made and that's what he's been doing. To call them backtracks is wrong. Get it right DCJoe and others. You reveal your bias. Axelrod was "shocked?" How do you know? Obama is the common sense candidate.

This has got to be one of the stupidest presidential queries I've ever heard. I put this right up there with "who you'd most like to have a beer with."

Even if in some fantasy world all of 'em were sitting around a campfire, only bin Laden has committed a crime. Even though we may not like them, what right do we have to just summarily execute people? To suggest that it be done with a nuclear weapon is just mind-boggling.

Where does the Post get these poeple from? Why does the media constantly make a joke of our political discourse, then want to blame the general public for being "ignorant" of the issues?

All these guys and gals who run for president need to sit down and think this thing thru before they open their mouth again. Gosh the US sorely needs intelligent leadership.

The only time the US should strike preemptively with nukes is if another country is prepared to attack first and potentially could cripple the US with such a first strike AND the US has 99.999% evidence to support such decision. The only country with such capability right now is Russia and maybe some day China.

In all other cases a first strike should be off the table with massive retaliation strikes prominently made known to all so called rogue states AND Al Qaeda and their supporters. Yes Al Qaeda. They don't operate in a vacuum. They have their home bases, currently in the Afghan/Pakistan border. They have their financial backers and their spiritual enablers, possibly thru out the rich oil states in that region. All these people should be made aware of our intent to strike back in case of a nuclear attack on US soil. Tancredo got it right in this case. This is the only deterrence that will work against a terrorist attack against the US. On the other hand a limited first strike by the US against Iran or Waziristan would only provoke these nuts more and made them suicidal on a massive scale.

So yes you need to distinguish between the contexts with regard to nukes. Blanket statements by Hilary, Obama or anybody else is simply nut.

Maybe you should ask some of them "mercenaries", eh, Arkin?

http://entropicpolitics.blogspot.com/

The use of Voldemort gives the others a level of Epic destiny that can only be told in 7 volumes. But, I disgress.

Nuclear weapons can never be used again. Period. That genie is out of the bottle. Threatening to retaliate against a nuclear strike with more nukes could destroy all life as we know it. Even in the event that we are attacked nuclearly, we can NEVER retaliate with nukes. The precedence it sets and the destruction it would wrought upon the earth is unacceptable.

It is further unacceptable to retaliate nuclearly when the very people who initiated the strike believe that immortality awaits them and do not fear death.

This is a stupid straw-man argument. If all those people were sitting around a fire, we could get them with means other than nuclear weapons: conventional bombs, special forces, predator drones, or just regular army. Therefore, you cannot in any way make a moral argument for using nuclear weapons in such a case, because the surrounding damage would be so great, and there would be so many other ways to accomplish the same goal. No president or candidate has ever or will ever say we would use nuclear weapons in such a case.

An extremely stupid blog.

During the Cold War, nuclear weapons were to be used in response to a first strike by the Soviet Union. There were tactical nuclear weapons, but they were designed to deal with a Soviet Army attacking Western Europe. The Soviet Union had more troops then NATO forces, and tactical nuclear weapons were the equalizer.
They were not considered for proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. MacArthur was fired for, among other things, threatening China with such weapons. Only compete idiots would advocate the use of these weapons on small Middle Eastern countries.
These weapons are deterrents, and there use is reserved for a response to a major nuclear attack on the U.S. by a nation
state.

Actionable intelligence...,

If we have it, ie, that Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Castro brothers and Voldemort are sitting around a campfire - America might be doing them a favor to nuke them.

Can you imagine the heartburn that they must be experiencing from eating a combination of roated Korean, Iranian, Cuban and other cuisine (Literally: Run to the border).

Isn't it a sad state of affairs when the suitability of American presidential candidates to be president, is based in part on whether he or she might or might not nuke other human beings.

The United States is being degraded everyday, and I am not sure where the responsibility should lie!

A nuke to kill a handful of people around a campfire? Has the entire world gone insane? There is no reason to use a nuke for such a job. Conventional small weapons are more than sufficient. You might use some types of specialized small nuke for certain tasks where nothing else would do. You certainly do not bring out an big nukes for less than a nuclear attack on US.

"But in these cases, there is nothing wrong with declaring that nuclear weapons should never be used. That then would open the way for a healthy discussion about circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be used--"
This is what passes for logic at the Post?

==As President, its likely that such screw-ups would cost us more than a few burned flags and ruffled diplomatic feathers.==

Maybe. But it couldn't cost us more than the price we are paying right now for a foreign policy of relentless aggression and nuclear posturing, no?

The only problem with this article is that, like all the media Obamaphiles, the author completely misprepresents what Obama actually said.

Obama did not say he would take nukes off the table. Yes, he initially suggested that that was his position, but then in a revealing clarification, he said "scratch that." Apparently, this is what now passes for thoughtful foreign policy--at least if you're Obama.

Worse yet, its de ja vu all over again. At the presidential debate, Obama said he'd talk to Castro, Ahmadinajad, Il, Chavez and Assad--all in the first year and all without any preconditions. Later, after his own campaign spokesperson (Axelrod), in a near state of shock, said, "well, of course, he didn't mean he'd meet with them personally," Obama's approach was morphed by the fawning media into "we should have diplomacy with everyone."

Its great that you media-types want to cut Obama all this slack for post-public-statement revisionism and make him say what you and he wish he had originally said. But in the real world, I don't think our adversaries or our slighted friends are going to be quite as willing to let him have all these do-overs. We got a little taste of this last week. After inciting the U.S. flag burnings and diplomatic rebukes in Pakistan, Obama says "Oh, nevermind, I didn't mean I would attack Pakistan without first working with Musharraf." As President, its likely that such screw-ups would cost us more than a few burned flags and ruffled diplomatic feathers.

The US has much more to fear from the spread of nuclear weapons than it has to gain from their use in situations like the one outlined above. Our current inventory of smart bombs gives use the technological advantage that once hung on our nuclear capacity.
By not taking nuclear weapons off the table in such circumstances, we provide a strong argument to those seeking to arm their own country with nuclear weapons. We undermine our own national priority- to stop the spread of these weapons to countries such as Iran and North Korea.

.... but uhm, substance

good, article

This might be the lamest thing I've ever seen on washingtonpost.com.

First, you (cough lie cough) misrepresent each candidates position. Obama issues a blanket statement about the use of nukes... A completely foolish thing to do. Hillary, (oh gawd I'm now defending Hillary) spoke against the use of Nukes IN A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

Second, you set up a hypothetical question, answer for the candidates THEN declare one a winner and one a loser. How lame is that!?!

Lastly, you end with the typical liberal claptrap.... We can't kill terrorists because that will only make more. In fact, we can't even threaten terrorists because that will cause cause countries to develop more weapons....

Heavy sigh.

I realize this was from BLOG.washingtonpost.com but geeze, I'd expect better logic from high school senior.

BTW lest, you think I'm an Shillery fan, um no. I have a brain.

sfs