Reply #13: I see it more as

[WilliamPitt]

a recognition of the potential for real danger within Musharaff's instability. I don't give much credence to his polemics on the eradication of extremism; he cut a deal with them and handed over territory to them, and cannot antagonize them or threaten them, because they will come for his head if provoked enough. It is an untenable situation.

Obama is showing a lot more foreign policy grit than I thought he posessed, and isn't afraid to address such a deeply unstable situation. If those nukes come near going rogue, whoever is commander in chief needs to cork that bottle but good. Obama let it be known that such an option exists. I'll take that over the candidate who says "Never" and then has to backpedal in the face of the worst case scenario.

As for threatening Musharraf, it isn't much of a concern, I think. The man has missiles coming at his plane and shooting in the streets, and also has to deal with Bush and India and Kashmir and Afghanistan...so a little bombast from one candidate won't rattle his cage.

If this makes me a war-fiend in your view, so be it. Pre-emptive war is almost always wrong, but "Never" doesn't cut it. A Pakistan gone rogue with loose nukes is one instance when the Poland lesson applies. If Poland had the means to disrupt the Nazi invasion before it began, would it have been immoral to do so? I'd say no, and say an attack on Pakistan to destroy an imminent threat of rogue nukes is justifiable.