Where Are Nukes at the Table of Peace?

By Brent McDougal, on EthicsDaily.com

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the toughest of them all when it comes to using nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden and terrorists in radical states such as Iran and Afghanistan? And by the way, while you're pondering that, mirror, mirror, what should people of faith and those who seek peace demand of candidates and leaders who feel the need to appear the toughest against our enemies?

In response to Barak Obama's statement that nuclear weapons were "not on the table" with regard to ungoverned territories in the two countries, Hillary Clinton responded that "presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," adding that she would not respond to hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace," said Clinton, "and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse."

The race is on to see who is the toughest, the biggest and the baddest when it comes to defending America against terrorism.

Targeting a person or small group with nuclear weapons? Seriously? Detonating a nuclear bomb on a country to eliminate a few persons within their population? Really? Ridiculous. And yet Clinton scores big for being hard-hitting, ready to strike at the least indication of terrorist activity, while Obama scrambles to define himself in stronger terms.
...

As a person of faith, and one called to be a "peacemaker" by Jesus, I'm shocked that candidates who say they follow the same teachings as I do could be so careless regarding the use of nuclear weapons. The same follows with the use of torture and the reflex use of violence against our enemies.

(continued)

Read the whole article at EthicsDaily.com.