M. A. D. mutual assured destruction
i remember as a grade school kid all of the fear mongering about the evil soviets. some people in kansas city built bomb shelters--even one church made an underground shelter as their sanctuary. i decided not to worry. sure, after the horror of hiroshima and nogasaki, i felt pretty certain that neither nation would risk beginning a nuclear war. and if someone were so stupid, i just hoped to be at ground zero--go out in a flash and avoid the slow, painful side effects.
i'd never thought before about the ambiguous idea that we wanted a president "tuff" enough to push the button, but at the same time wise enough not to start ww3. whoa! this is the first i'd heard about kissinger and nixon's little sabre rattling experiment! yet i do remain convinced that the elected president has no red button allowing him/her to start a war in a fit of panic or horrible accident. "damn! i meant to start the coffee maker--where's the cancel button?" in the beginning the military wisdom spoke about the need for defense against those crazy, unpredictable reds, but soon the talk changed to "first strike capability." in other words the u.s. could decide to be the aggressor. so, here in 2016 along comes the donald with all his bellicose language. "we cannot" say the democrats, "allow this nutcase anywhere near that magic red button! he might actually use it!"
doesn't this catch hillary in the trap? she needs to convince the frightened voters that she is "tuff enough" to push the button, yet wise enough not to start the war to end all wars!
Hillary Clinton: "Yesterday we witnessed the latest in a long line of casual comments from Donald Trump that cross the line—his casual cruelty to a Gold Star family, his casual suggestion that more countries should have nuclear weapons, and now his causal inciting of violence. Every single one of these incidents shows us that Donald Trump simply does not have the temperament to be president and commander-in-chief of the United States."