The Nuclear Option

Was single payer ever really on the table? I don't remember any publicity about it, but I wasn't paying as much attention to politics in those days as I am now. I do remember that a lot of stuff was stripped out of Obamacare to get more Democrats to vote for it, and that some of that stuff was put back into the package after the bill was passed. One thing in particular was abortion funding. Our local congressman, Bart Stupak (D), refused to vote for Obamacare unless the abortion part was taken out, so they took it out. When they put it back in afterwards, old Bart was so upset by it that he retired from politics at the end of his term. Another thing was something called "the public option", which was taken out to pacify Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from some New England state like Connecticut. That one was never put back in, at least not yet. Pity, it was the only part of Obamacare that I liked. The idea of changing a law after it was passed was something that I never heard of before, and I believe it was challenged in the courts. To my knowledge, the courts have upheld it so far, but they may not be done hearing all the cases yet. Of course, once the precedent has been established, it means a Republican president could do it too, if we ever elect another Republican president.

I don't mind talking politics with you. Funny, the only two people with whom I am able to discuss politics intelligently are you and my daughter, and they are both liberals. Go figure! Be that as I may, I have been paying more attention lately, now that I have somebody with whom to discuss it. I only see my daughter a half dozen times a year, and she is too busy to join us here at the Institute, so you are it.

This evening there was something on the TV news about a conference being held on nuclear proliferation (they are against it). Trump, who was not invited to the conference, managed to get his two cents in during some kind of interview. He said that we should give nuclear weapons to Japan and South Korea so that they can defend themselves against North Korea. He also said that he wouldn't rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the fight against ISIS. Hillary, speaking in a different interview afterwards, said talk like that scares her. I don't know what to think about that, so I am submitting it to the Institute for further discussion.

From a tactical standpoint, nuclear weapons would be of little use against ISIS because they don't present any targets that are large enough. There is some concern, however, about ISIS or some other terrorist cult planting a small nuclear device in one of our major cities. They wouldn't be able to level the whole city, just demolish one neighborhood and make it uninhabitable for a few years. I understand one can make a "dirty bomb" like that out of small bits of nuclear material like they use in some medical procedures. Decades ago, there was some talk of the U.S. developing small "tactical nukes", but I don't know if they ever actually did it.