Okay, let's cut to some real hard-nosed basics here.

If we're talking about the possibility of North Korea or Iraq starting a nuclear war, which we seem to be, then be reminded that the United States has a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them precisely down any chimney anywhere on the planet. Just a day or two ago a brand new Trident submarine sailed into Hood Canal to the Bangor submarine base not too far from where I live. Several Tridents operate out of Bangor. And there are several other Trident sub bases around the country. A Trident submarine can sit underwater off the coast of any country on earth and lob missiles, nuclear or conventional, into the interior. The firepower of one single Trident submarine exceeds that of most of the nations on earth. And the Trident sub is only one of many weapons systems we have. Any country that attacks the United States with a nuclear weapon is asking for retaliation in kind. I believe our stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons are essentially equivalent to our other ordnance. And our capabilities in conventional warfare are second to none. I think that every nation on earth knows that to attack the United States with conventional weapons is futile, and to attack us with weapons of mass destruction is to do nothing less than commit national suicide. The doctrine if Mutual Assured Destruction (aptly named MAD) is still a valid defense against such attacks (although I tend to doubt the "mutual" part of that. The United States would sustain damage in such a war, but the attacking country would be destroyed.). I'm sure Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and others are fully cognizant of this.

I would not be concerned with any military exploits launched against us by the "Axis of Evil."

Terrorists, on the other hand, are another matter. Any single person can be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh had some help, but there is no doubt that he could have handled the whole thing all by himself. And according to the news, one person with a rifle seems to be doing a pretty fair job of terrorizing a whole lot of people. Fighting terrorism requires something considerably more difficult and precise that gross military action. And it requires a whole different mindset.

No matter how much our fearless (?) leader tries to convince us otherwise, for the United States to attack some country without our having been attacked first by that specific country is against international law, good sense, and common decency, and it's against all the principles America claims to stand for. To try to connect this with a "war on terrorism" shouldn't fool anyone into thinking that it's anything but imperialistic expansion combined with an attempt to divert people's attention away from domestic problems and attempts to slip unpopular programs in under the radar. It would be an exercise in futility and general silliness were it not for the tragic consequences of such an action. Not to mention the sheer dishonesty and immorality of it.

As far as our foreign policy is concerned, rather than insulting the leaders and the peoples of other nations by calling them "evil," a president with real presidential qualities would be attempting to resolve difficulties and disagreements, not engendering them. We (meaning our government) have the strength to do this. But obviously not the will.

Don Firth

P. S.: By the way, how is it that counties like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, and scores of others I could name have strong economies, get along well with their neighbors, and are populated by happy, healthy, free people—and they hardly have any military forces at all? Maybe we could learn something from them?

Nah! That's just plain silly!