If I may be so bold #3

I have lived in Peachtree City since 1984, but back in the 1970's I lived in Atlanta for four years. Oddly I do not remember things as they are protrayed on "That 70's show", rather it was a time of scrimping up $2 to go to a boarding house and buy supper at the
buffet there, sometimes the only meal I had that day.

For I was a student. I didn't plan to be a student, but when I went to join the Navy they said, "Why don't you let us send you to college?" So I said, "Sure, send me to Georgia Tech."

And so, when I was young I volunteered for military service. I washed out. Technically, I was "disenrolled for inaptitude" and
given an Honorable Discharge.

Before I ever volunteered however, I had to make a decision. Would I be willing to use the weapons at my disposal in combat to take the life of another person? Obviously I answered this internal question with a "yes". One of the weapons I would possibly have used was the missiles on a submarine; missiles with nuclear warheads.

Our society classifies the taking of a human life in many different ways. Ways that are judged to be "wrong" are codified as crimes. In essence we, through our elected officials, codify the prevailing morality by defining what is a crime and providing laws that describe what is unlawful and provide for punishment of those convicted. Some people make the mis-statement "You can't legislate
morality." Actually, morality is all that you can legislate. Whether the existence of a law changes someone's behaviour, however, is a valid
question.

Some taking of human life is judged to be justified, and no onus is attached to the person doing so. Such situations as lawful executions, self defense, and acts of war fall into this category. This kind of justification is a legal term, and many have personal disagreements with such justifications. Yet our society as a whole has set the rules thusly.

In considering the vast array of candidates both announced and unannounced for President of the United States (and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces) I wonder if these people ask themselves the same question I did before I volunteered for military
service. There are two weapons the Commander In Chief has at their disposal: 1) The Military 2) Nuclear weapons.

Somehow I cannot envision a reporter asking a candidate, "Do you have what it takes to order the use of Nuclear Weapons?". Even further from the realm of possiblity is a straight answer to such a question. The question goes to the soul of the candidate. No matter
how they answer it or what weasel words they use, if their answer is other than "yes" severe doubt would be attached to their fitness to take
the job.

Of course if they did answer "yes" they would be attacked immediately as war mongers and their candidacy ended. What a dilemma! Shame it will never happen eh?

The rest of the world is beginning to believe that there is no situation where the United States of America will ever again use Nuclear Weapons. They know we have them, but it doesn't deter them. When our enemies get them however, their compulsions not to use them are probably going to be somewhat weaker than our own. Their threats will be taken seriously, for they have shown already their resolve and the actions they are willing to take to attack us.

The Energy War is coming.