“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table.”
Hilary Clinton in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006, responding to a question about how the Bush administration should try to dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse” [of nuclear weapons.]
Hilary Clinton, August 2007, criticizing Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons to target Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
She was right in April 2006, by the way.
This aversion to “ruling out” or “taking off the table” even manifestly stupid uses of nuclear weapons is an obsolete practice of a bygone Cold War era.
Or, at least, that is what Ivo Daalder and I argue today in the Financial Times (subscription only):
Rather than debating which candidate has the most experience, is the strongest and toughest, or most favours change, we need to debate the nature of the world we live in and the appropriate way to respond to the new challenges that are out there. When it comes to nuclear weapons, is the most presidential stance the one that views nuclear weapons as another munition to brandish? Or is it one that accepts the legitimacy of possessing these weapons only to prevent them from ever being used again?