North Korea is the only situation where using nuclear weapons is justifiable (at the moment). Kim Jong (mentally) Il might be crazy enough to use them on us. If (AND ONLY IF) he does, which would you honestly prefer: using a nuclear weapon on him, or sacrificing thousands upon thousands of troops mounting a ground invasion? I'm sorry, but when it comes down to a horrific "us or them" question like that, nationalism wins out for me. Or would you rather just let the UN slap him on the wrist? That's all they can do independently, after all: if the UN approved an invasion, we might as well do it ourselves, since the we make up the bulk of its military resources, anyway. My point through all this is: why deny us our greatest asset when there's someone crazy enough to set these things in motion? When the North Korean and Iranian governments start acting in a manner that could vaguely be described as rational, then I'm all for it. I don't want the world ending up in nuclear winter either, but think of it this way: they're more likely to use it than we are (especially if the Democrats gain control of both Congress and the Presidency in 2008), and if they use it, we can make sure they never use it again. Overall, the number of bombs used will be less. Let's pray, though, that none have to be used at all.