U.S. Leaders Uphold the Status Quo of the Bush Administration Despite Grassroots Outrage.

Barack Obama's statement,
last Thursday, that he would not use nuclear weapons ``in any circumstance'' to
fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan and drew criticism from chief
rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and accolades from anti-nuclear activists. 
It appears Sen. Obama is the only leading Presidential candidate who is willing
to consider the multifaceted implications of a foreign policy where 'all
options' are on the table.

During the Cold War the U.S. public was intimately aware of the
threat nuclear war posed to the country and the world.  While the bombs
have become more powerful the country has become more complacent about our
leaders threatening their use.  It is a shame that in all the rhetoric
condemning or applauding Obama's statement no one has questioned the
destructive position of Clinton and the other candidates. 

Nuclear weapons are never
an acceptable form of force, but especially in this circumstance would be
devastating to our world and to our national security – moreover, they would be
ineffectual in their purpose.

Nuclear weapons cannot
weed terrorists out of the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Nuclear weapons are
designed to decimate a region or country – they have no purpose but to kill
civilians for years after the initial explosion with cancer and birth
defects.  By definition, their use is in itself is a terrorist act because they so specifically target civilians.  Our threats of a 'nuclear option' only
further inflame a difficult diplomatic situation in the Middle East and radicalize new terrorist
recruits.

Those candidates who would
not take the nuclear option off the table are callus and arrogant – preferring
to placate to the minority of the country who support the Bush administration
than to stand up for a new direction in U.S. foreign policy.  They are
naïve for believing the nuclear option should ever be on the table.