Andrew Bair provided an explanation of the reasoning of Bush in carrying out his plan to implement "bunker busting" nuclear warheads.

Bair states that this is necessary in order to "produce enough heat to vaporize" any biological weapons in underground storage.

The threat of anthrax is terrifying, and no one is denying that. But the threat of nuclear involvement is terrifying as well, if not even more so. Before we decide that nuclear retaliation is indeed necessary and our only option, I think that all other prospective resolutions to the problem should be addressed.

I am not a political science major, nor am I as up on current events as I should be, but it seems to me that the use of nuclear weapons cannot be the only solution to this issue. There are always more than two answers to most problems. We shouldn't be forced into choosing between nuclear retaliation or not, which we are basically told would result in a disastrous viral outbreak. Doesn't the answer to a problem usually lie somewhere in the middle between two extremes?

Again, I don't have the answer myself, nor do I claim to have it. But before we make a decision as a nation that has such incredible implications as this one, shouldn't we be sure we are being offered the only solutions? Maybe we should all take a step back and reexamine the situation so that we make an intelligent decision.