from the USA Today

In 1964, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater raised the prospect of exploding “low-yield atomic weapons” in Vietnam. Democrats responded with perhaps the most famous and potent political ad in U.S. history. It shows a little girl picking petals off a daisy and counting them. She looks up startled as an atomic bomb explodes. The ad, intended to make Goldwater look like someone who would recklessly use nuclear weapons, helped raise questions among voters about his judgment.

The current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls seems to be inviting another daisy-girl ad. At last week’s CNN’sponsored GOP debate in New Hampshire, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, as if channeling Goldwater, spoke of using tactical nuclear weapons as a last resort against Iran’s nuclear program. When three other candidates - former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney - were asked about that, they were somewhat more measured but said all options should be on the table.

Keeping all options on the table without explicitly spelling them out - something diplomats call “strategic ambiguity” - has its place in keeping enemies guessing about U.S. intentions. But the tactical nuclear option is so extreme, and has such enormous potential ramifications, that it should not be discussed in the same breath as conventional bombs. In their haste to talk tough, Hunter and his fellow GOP aspirants lost an opportunity to show voters that they grasp the dangers and can be trusted to be responsible nuclear stewards.

Nukes aren’t just another weapon. Their use risks killing hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians both on the spot and later from the effects of radiation. Even raising the prospect of using them to stop a nuclear program crosses a dangerous red line.

Atomic bombs have been used only once in human history. The United States dropped them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 with devastating impact that brought World War II to a close in the Pacific. In the 1950s, America held up the prospect of nuclear retaliation to prevent Soviet forces from trying to overrun Western Europe in a conventional invasion. Throughout the Cold War, the prospect of mutually assured destruction deterred their use by the United States and Soviet Union.

read more at The USA Today