| How about a man of God wanting to maintain credible nuclear deterrence against a hostile, ruthless, totalitarian foe? Formulated that way, it makes a lot of sense. I am generally against terror bombing, for example, but during World War Two, I cannot see we had an alternative, since the enemy could not be allowed to bomb Allied population centers with impunity. Deterrence, if effective, does a great deal less, it merely threatens. That being said, I support SDI for the same reason Reagan came up with it, because of a desire to get beyond Mutually Assured Destruction, to defend against nukes instead of promising to blow up the cities of the enemy......... |
