...ago we employed the first nuclear weapon ever used in war on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. A few days later, we dropped another on Nagasaki. Neither we, nor anyone else has done so since. Let's hope that it remains that way.

While I also hope that no one ever needs to use a nuclear weapon again, I'm starting to ge a bit tired of this "let's get rid of all our nuclear weapons" sentiment being voiced by people like the head of the IAEA.

Having all the major superpowers get rid of their nuclear weapons isn't going to reduce the chances that someone is going to use a nuclear weapon. In fact, it will increase it, as rogue countries like North Korea would be able to launch nuclear attacks without the fear of a retaliatory attack.

North Korea may not be, in fact, able to be deterred -- at least by means that we had open to us in the past.

The Soviet leaders -- whatever one thought of them -- appeared to be at least somewhat rational. Ditto Chinese leaders today. I'm not so sure about Kim Jong-Il.

On the other hand, while destroying a city with a nuclear weapon would indeed by horrifying, let us remember that Japan did survive such an attack and has recovered from the extreme devastation of war. So has Europe -- at least the western part.

What worries me more is what we could do to ourselves with a repressive regime set up to prevent the horror of nuclear terrorism. That could do us more damage than something like 9/11, only nuclear.

I have no problem with having Nuclear Weapons on the deterrent level. As a weapon though, their importance has been mitigated with stealth and accuracy. We dropped the Atomic Bomb in 1945, because we couldn't destory Japan's military without putting at risks many more soldiers and airmen. Today, the US can wipe out most Armies and Air Forces with very few of our soldiers and airmen put at risk. We can do that with conventional weapons. That very fact is a deterrent to most sane leaders around the world.

Something that fascinates me is how well things worked out. If WWII had been delayed for only a few years, it might have been fought with hundreds of nuclear bombs. If it had come a year earlier, we would not have started the nuclear era with a very clear warning of the dangers facing us.

And it's likely that the Japanese had a narrow escape, with the timing just right to tip the balance to surrender. If they had fought it out like they did on Okanawa, they might have lost most of their population.

One unfortunate piece of timing was the interval between bombs. Apparently the destruction from the Hiroshima bomb was so great, that it took many days for Tokyo to actually understand what had happened. No one was able to report from the city. The Japanese seemed to the Allies to be stonewalling, but in fact they were probably just bewildered.