Last month, the world marked the sixtieth year since two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus bringing an end to World War II.

In the media, there was renewed debate on the subject of nuclear weapons; dramatizations depicting both the horror of the action and the difficulty of the decision were aired on several networks.

The United States' rationale for bombing Japan was, as stated, to save the lives of the million or so Japanese and Americans who eventually would have been killed on each side had the war continued. When Japanese emperor Hirohito and the Supreme Council met in Tokyo on August 9th, the message to them was clear: You're next.

The U.S. essentially sacrificed the lives of 200,000 Japanese (the relative few) to save 2 million (the many) - or 1,800,000 if you count those who perished in the bombings. The action not only ended the war, but set the stage for acknowledgment of America's global supremacy, which was overshadowed only due to the treachery of the Americans who passed on bomb plans to the Soviet Union.

On August 23, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." Leaving aside the question of just how much a threat Chavez presents to America or to world peace, the outcry over a Christian leader making such a declaration quickly became more of a story than the fact that the declaration was made by a prominent broadcaster, former presidential candidate, and confidant of key U.S. political players.

The idea that such action is unthinkable or that we have morally evolved beyond it is simply intellectual dishonesty in action. There is scriptural basis for the contextual resignation between faith and the machinations of government; the idea that the authentic Christian ought to be some sort of glassy-eyed, pacifistic zombie is absurd.

In 1986, President Reagan ordered targets in Libya bombed in retaliation for a rash of terrorist attacks American intelligence traced to that country. An estimated 40 Libyans, including family members of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, were killed. Gadhafi was considered one of the most dangerous and destabilizing agents of the era, and conventional wisdom suggests that the Libyan leader was not meant to survive the attack. In December of 2003 - after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Gadhafi announced his decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction programs "as an important step toward rejoining the international community." Perhaps he thought he was to be next.

In the case of political assassination, whether one examines Robertson's assertion or Reagan's supposed intentions, again the rationale is accepting smaller sacrifices to avoid potentially larger ones.
Now, I'm not suggesting we nuke anyone - yet - but it is clear that the dangers we face from terrorism are greater than most Americans realize, largely due to the media. There have been allegations made by seasoned former intelligence operatives that components for portable nuclear devices - if not complete devices themselves - have already been smuggled into the U.S. If these reports are accurate, there can be no more doubt that the responsible parties have the will to use them than there was that the World War II Axis powers were bent on the global spread of fascism.

A very large part of the problem the U.S. faces geopolitically is that we are perceived by our enemies as having lost our will. This should be no surprise, given our government's policies and responses to aggression over the last 30 years and the influence of the American and European media.

So envision this: Daybreak over Teheran, Damascus, and Pyongyang. Shortly after early-warning systems are activated, thermonuclear devices of impressive yield are detonated in unpopulated areas within visual range of these cities. Somewhat ecologically offensive, but no one dies. The events are reported by the media, and the United States immediately claims responsibility. Within the hour, the President announces with the apposite diplomatic verbiage: You're next.

If you think that the lion's share of our geopolitical difficulties wouldn't evaporate with astonishing speed, you're just kidding yourself.