perfidy

The Senate today voted to resume development of smaller, more useable nuclear devices, citing as a reason the changing nature of American foreign conflicts and the need for a better bunker-buster.

I will try very hard to keep the sophomoric sarcasm at bay as I ask why this is really necessary. Should we be developing these devices because other nations are? Should we use them as bunker-busters because conventional weaponry aren't getting the job done? Is it worth scaring the hell out of half the world for the sake of some Strangelovian worst-case histogram that says it's a good idea?

Obviously, I would answer "no" to all my leading questions. I don't see the strategic utility of nuclear devices in any conflict except a cornered-rat scenario. Moreover, there's the very real risk that other nations may use this initiative to justify their own renewed efforts at evelopment. And, of course, after everything else, there's the moral issues. Senator Ted Kennedy summed it all up nicely, saying "Is half a Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter Hiroshima OK? Is a little mushroom cloud OK?"

But maybe there's something I'm missing. I urge you to read the article, decide for yourself, and let me know if I'm just doomey-eyed.

[update]: Jeez, I really gotta lay off the Doom 'n Gloom stuff for a while and post about puppies, topless dancers, and stupid hijinks. I'm a fairly unserious person-- I'm sure my compatriots would agree-- and analysis of global issues isn't exactly a market I can corner.