The nuclear powers test their boundaries and willingness to use nuclear weapons every day. Encounters between nuclear submarines is an example.

Politically I guess it's a no-no to admit this much. That's too bad because it creates a distorted view.

Christopher Hitchens pointed out, that the deployment of nuclear weapons amounts to the universal conscription of all civilians, so there is no use of nuclear weapons that does not affect civilians.

So the position that nuclear weapons not be used under any circumstance against civilians is tantamount to the position that they not be used under any circumstances.

"[N]uclear strategies ... [are] therefore, concerned not with real events but with the minutiae of military technology and with the plans for the use of the resulting weapons systems. By their very nature both strive to ensure their own futility."

"The nuclear stockpile of the United States has an estimated explosive yield of approximating to 9000 million tons of TNT [and with that of the stockpiles of other countries means adding the equivalent of 2 Hiroshima bombs] every half hour, day and night for [over half a century]."

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan accused Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama of "sheer ignorance" on Thursday for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaida on Pakistani soil.

Starting from talking to everyone, nothing wrong with that, that is such an old hat with limited applicability to Bush and no one else. Continuing with demanding responsibility of young African American instead of attacking the source of the problem that is drug related incarceration of way too many of them. Then there comes the merit pay for teachers instead of paying teacher a decent and attractive salaries that will attract more and better teachers.

"As commander in chief, I would take the steps necessary to defend the American people, beginning with hunting down Osama bin Laden and stopping terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. But I will not declare my intentions for specific military action to the media in the context of a political campaign" (Senator Chris Dodd).  

God forbid a presidential candidate should tell us where he actually stands, the American people certainly aren't used to that, but maybe it's time we started demanding answers to these questions before we put these people in our White House.  

Of course all the other candidates or their campaign managers are defending their nonanswers to this hard question by saying they're not going to telegraph what they would do, playing this off as if they were being asked a question on a tactical matter, instead of a statement of deeper principle.  No surprise that Obama's inadvertent openness has got the other candidates running for cover.  

Obama's Warning to PakistanDrives Democratic Debate

I submit that the use of a nuclear weapon, any nuclear weapon, cannot be confined to the realm of internal tactical matters, it's far too grave a matter for that.  

Let's take a poll, who here is for using nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise?  Raise your hand.

Today he proved just how not ready for prime time the Junior Senator from Illinois is.  As he demonstrated during the debates, Obama just can't seem to help stepping into a big pile of his own making.

His latest flailing of I-won't-use-nukes-with-citizens-wait-scr atch-that-I'm-not discussing-nukes debacle illustrates that he is as clueless about how a Commander-In-Chief should address the most potent weapon in his military arsenal as he is about how to respond to a terrorist attack or about Presidential diplomacy.

The American electorate doesn't seem to like what Obama is stepping in, either.

The three most recent national polls taken after the debate show Clinton trending up and ahead by double-double digits over her nearest rival.  As of today, Clinton trounces Obama 43(38) to 21(25) Rasmussen; 43(39) to 22(25) NBC/WSJ, and 40(34) to 21(24) Pew.

I disagree for two reasons: First is that most Americans are uncomfortable with the prospect of nuclear weapons; we don't like being reminded of them and someone who expresses hesitation about using them rather than the "no options off the table" evasions to which we've become inured is unlikely to be seen by the public as having made a gaffe.

My second reason, believe it or not, is HRC's response. For those who pay closer than usual attention to such things, which primary voters usually do, she comes off like an old-school cold warrior - which will play well with some but not with others. More importantly, by snapping back so quickly, she turned this into - and so far it has been been covered as - just more "back and forth" between the two of them, just more "sniping."