In general terms McNamara did not mince his words

Unable to reason on the unfortunate initiative of North Korea to the underground explosion of an atomic bomb without referring to the war of Iraq. It is now virtually established that the President Bush and Tony Blair knew before the trigger that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction that Bush and British Prime Minister accused him of secretly hold its territory. In case they have believed in their own argument, have launched their troops in the assault

Leave free the Iranian and North Korean territories after attacking without major risk the Iraq could make a huge incentive to proliferation.

In a presentation in May 2004 before the reflection Heritage club, a senior official of the National Nuclear Security Administration said: "probably the most controversial chapter of the requests for funds that we have made concerning the financing of a study on the"Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"" (RNEP). "It's carry nuclear warheads B61 and B83 existing of the proper equipment to make gear capable of penetrating deep into layers of rock (to destroy the Iranian industry for example). Will this adaptation possible without actual testing O irony, such was the question posed by the speaker.

So important that it is, the question of nuclear weapons of the two rebel countries cited is that illustration of something deeper, already begun. It could lead to a new race to rearm to the highest level. In the United States, there are a few independent intelligences capable of addressing the problem. Nothing there really France. The obsession of the symbols of the power it stifles a reflection on the power.

Note for the record that the hypocritical speeches on the "clean bomb" does not change the Atomic horror. That said, the argument of terror by the nuclear weapon is used as the supporters of the two theses in the presence. For some, it will always be one weapon like no other. others, based on the criterion of effectiveness, will say that President Eisenhower declared on March 12, 1955 in response to a question: "In any combat, these things can be used against targets and to strictly military objectives, I see no reason that they are not used in the same way as a ball or anything else." It does that since two bombs thrown at the Japan in the month of August, 1945, he never was made use of nuclear weapons. General President Eisenhower was there for his part in the facts. According to the Economist (and writing artist) American, Thomas Schelling, preserving and developing the tradition of the "taboo" is the paramount task, it passes in front of the non-proliferation Treaty. This is what he proclaimed in December 2005 in Stockholm for the Nobel Prize which he was awarded. Speech title: "Decisions of the highest order: the legacy of Hiroshima".

For Schelling, it's an inhibition which, to date, has become even in the minds of those who pronounce for commonality. This reflex indicates correctness and lucidity which Western civilization as soon as she recovered her spirits after the horrors committed in the last year of the second world war. This inhibition relativizes, if possible, almost insane practices inspired by the fear of the atom to the authorities American and French holders of the bomb. The United States still maintain some 4,500 strategic nuclear warheads, whose power would, on average, 20 times higher than the Hiroshima bomb. 2000 would be deployed, ready to leave within 15 minutes after the order given by the President, which is never disposed of the infamous Briefcase of doctor Follamour. What this is, if not to spread a false and nihilistic design of public power

An idea has the hard life: fear of atomic war would have kept the peace during the 40-year cold war. It is cheap anti-nuclear doctrine that has inspired NATO on the impetus of President Kennedy and Johnson and their Minister of defence, Robert Mc McNamara. The idea was that if by misfortune a war broke out in Europe, it should all be so that it is not atomic. NATO began then, at a cost very high but politically assumed to appeal of conventional arms. Particularly illuminating on the nature of the inhibition which he has been made, the Soviets followed suit and it conflicted with official "posture". They continued to proclaim that a war in Europe could only be nuclear, but they manufacture tanks. Bilateral conventional rearmament was somehow the manifestation of a tacit agreement for on nuclear disarmament.

As of December 2001, the new nuclear policy announced by the Bush administration in its "Nuclear Posture Review" proclaimed that the US should take their precautions for the case where would appear again in Moscow "a mentality of the arms race." Especially the need to build a large industrial sector ready to return at any time to the manufacture of missiles and nuclear warheads within 10 years to come a "responsive Nuclear Weapons Infrastructure", otherwise was affirmed. The economic implications of such a program are enormous. The industry of war actually does not work according to the laws of the Exchange, where the sale of a consumer market production reconstitutes the value of consumed production and provides resources for depreciation. Said industry is funded by the tax. In general terms, McNamara did not mince his words. He considered to be in an article published in May 2005 the policy of nuclear weapons of the United States "immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, terribly dangerous." And add: "declare war requires the consent of the Congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust, it would suffice to 20 minutes of deliberation between the President and his advisors."