Regarding your editorial "A nuclear cudgel" (Dec. 23):
President Bush merely extended the former Cold War policy regarding weapons of mass destruction to Iraq and other potential policy thorns. The appropriate terminology is that the United States would not preclude the use of nuclear weapons in response to another nation's first use of weapons of mass destruction (bugs, gas or nukes) against the United States or our deployed troops.
A treaty exists stating the same regarding any hostile nation attacking NATO. What President Bush and American military policy are not very clear about is the U.S. response to the use of weapons of mass destruction against Israel.
Would the president be willing to retaliate by proxy should Saddam attempt to launch a regional Arab-Israeli war by pitting his weapons of mass destruction against the Jewish state⢠This appears to be a far more likely scenario than the Iraqi leader solely targeting U.S. or British troops, as the 1991 Gulf War aptly demonstrated.
Saddam will not go quietly, even though he likely realizes his own days may be numbered. He will do what he can to bring the region's tensions to a climactic head, securing his place in history as the savior who helped to destroy Israel.
The question then becomes, "What is the president doing to prevent this apocalyptic scenario from becoming an increasingly possible reality?"
Harmony
The writer is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who served as a B-52 navigator/bombardier and nuclear planner.
