The Ultimate Question For A Presidential Candidate

A few days ago, Senator Obama caused quite a stir. He was trying to bolster the “tough” aspect of his campaign image, and he wanted to appear as though he’ll have some sort of “toughness” in dealing with foreign policy matters. Specifically, he said that he’d be willing to take military action in Pakistan if there was good intelligence on Al Queda targets, and if the Pakistani government refused to take action.  Some said he was talking about invasion, others air strikes, or special operations, or perhaps something else. To be clear, he later said that he would not use nuclear weapons. That forms the basis of the perfect question for a Presidential candidate.

No one ever wants to see a nuclear war whether it’s a terrorist strike, a covert mutli-weapon strike from a rogue regime, or full on nuclear war. For 60+ years millions of Americans have worked to make the most deadly and horrific machines of death ever conceived. Countless numbers of people sat for months in underground bunkers with their launch keys ready to turn. Many Americans went underwater in submarines for half a year at a time with each sub capable of unleashing more firepower than all the nations of World War II combined. Pilots and aircrews have circled around failsafe points on a map all around the arctic circle.

All these people were ready, willing, and able to unleash the horrors of nuclear armageddon at a moments notice, and without hesitation. Candidate X, are you as well, personally prepared to use a nuclear weapon or to unleash America’s nuclear arsenal?

Clearly President Roosevelt was ready to use a nuclear weapon otherwise he’d have never gone to the trouble to covertly make them. President Truman didn’t even hesitate when asked to give the order. He was told the bomb was ready, the weather had left the target cities visible, and history records that within minutes he gave the order to drop the first nuclear bomb-not as a demonstration / show of force….no, he had that bomb dropped on a city full of civilians and some military to make a statement stronger than "wow". President Kennedy was sure ready, willing, and able to use nuclear bombs. After all, he was the President who brought the world the closest it has ever come to nuclear Armageddon.

Those men were all Democrats (albeit, a different breed of Democrat than those who lead the party today). By comparison, does anyone doubt that President Eisenhower (who had lead the conventional war in Europe that killed millions) was willing to use nuclear weapons? Can anyone doubt that President Nixon (who ordered more conventional bombs dropped on North Vietnam than were used by the United States against Germany, Italy, and Japan combined)…without a doubt, that was a man prepared to kill hundreds of thousands of people. President Reagan was constantly stereotyped as nuclear trigger happy, and even he joked publicly about launching a nuclear war against the Soviet Union.

At the risk of stating the obvious, a nuclear weapon is an awful thing. There is no such thing as a small nuclear weapon. At a minimum a nuclear weapon can kill tens of thousands less than a second. At a maximum, a single nuclear weapon can lay flat entire American states, and we’re not just talking about Rhode Island, and a few other New England enclaves.

Places like Ohio and West Virginia can be completely incinerated by a large nuclear weapon, and it’s important to note that tens of thousands of these weapons exist on the planet.

Of those tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on the planet, more are coming, and only a fraction of those devices of death are under the control of the United States. Since the device was first designed, built, and used, mankind has been at risk from nuclear attack.

Nuclear weapons are used for three things:

1) To attack
2) To retaliate
3) To deter an attack or retaliation

Now, surely no Presidential candidate is ever going to say they’d attack another nation using nuclear weapons. Since Gov. Dean’s 2004 Presidential bid, the nation’s anti-war movement has increased several fold, and to make such a comment would be political suicide. Would they be willing to retaliate with a nuclear strike?  Well there are all kinds of hypothetical scenarios, but the question posed to a Presidential candidate isn’t whether or not one scenario or another would warrant it.

The question is do they have the same resolve as those millions of other Americans to turn the key in the silo, to flip the levers on the submarine launch panel, to press the bomb release button in a B-52? Do they have that same mettle?

If they lack the ability to order the horrific death of millions via a nuclear weapon, then the third and most important use for a nuclear weapon is made impossible.

They say that war is one nation imposing its political and/or economic will upon another through violent means. However, the nature of war is to continue rather than to seek an end. That’s why typically politicians and diplomats end wars-not generals. It’s why treaties need to be ratified by Congress, not just signed by a general in the field. But, in a nuclear war, things are a little different. When nuclear weapons are introduced to that dark definition, the nature of war wins out over the purpose. That is to say that war itself has to be avoided almost at all costs.

Where is that “almost”?

The only way to avoid a nuclear war is deterrence. If two nations have nuclear weapons, and there is a dispute between the two, lacking nuclear deterrence, there can very likely be war, and if there are nuclear weapons, then eventually (since wars evolve/escalate as a part their nature) nuclear weapons will be used.

Mayor Giuliani, are you willing to order the use of a nuclear weapon?
Senator Clinton, are you willing to order the use of a nuclear weapon?
Senator McCain, are you willing to order the use of a nuclear weapon?
Senator Obama, are you willing to order the use of a nuclear weapon?
Senator Thompson, are you willing to order the use of a nuclear weapon?
Senator Edwards, are you willing to order the use of a nuclear weapon?
Governor Romney, are you willing to order the use of a nuclear weapon?

When it comes to issues of life, death, and awful realities of war, which of these potential Presidents seem like they’d be willing to follow in the footsteps of Roosevelt, Truman, or Kennedy? Which candidate seems so willing to give that nightmarish order as to deter our enemies from considering a nuclear holocaust against New York City, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and/or anywhere and everywhere in between?