Ron Paul in Derry, NH on December 15.

Full house. Enthusiastic Supporters.  Impressive background- Duke Medical School. I took one of his brochures when I left.  Three generations of M.D.'s. Smart smart family. They are not doing it with mirrors.

When I saw him I kind of felt like I felt when I saw Bob Dole kick off his campaign in New Hampshire about 15 years ago. He is just too old. Even if what he said resonated with enough people to win the primary, a lot of voters would have second thoughts about electing a first term president in his mid-70's. But the issues that his candidacy raises will resonate well after the time he, and all the rest of us over 70, have left these mortal coils behind.

We, the people over 65, have lived through what I have called THE IMPORTANT 50 YEARS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Something has been established since we were in high school: America is not the only place that can produce enough gifted engineers to destroy 14,000 years of civilization in one afternoon. Because IQ data is with the human race for the next 500 years; that will not change. No generation has witnessed as important an event as what we, the generation over 65 witnessed with nuclear weapons.

We ole timers, and Ron Paul among us, will miss most of which what is inevitably on its way: THE INTERESTING 50 YEARS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. How will the American people handle the enormous threat of nuclear weaponry? I suspect if there is a single term today that will form the pivot of American behavior on the issue; it is "American Exceptionalism."

  What was interesting about the day of the rally was that as I getting ready to leave the office, I heard Sean Hannity with a guest who focused on a series of newsletters from Paul's office which were labeled racist and anti-semitic. Now, if you believe what I believe; that the issue of nuclear weapons will not go away, Paul will not be the last Republican who wants to put some space between America and Israel. And, fair or not, he will not be the last Republican politician taken to task by Jewish publishers and pundits for the ambition.

I think Jews, and publishers and pundits who are attuned to Jewish interests, understand the Paul threat. See specifically two columns in the Wall Street Journal: one on December 16, 2011 by Kimberley A. Strassel "Why Ron Paul Can't Win," and the second on December 22, 2011 by Dorothy Rabinowitz "What Ron Paul Thinks of America."

The Strassel column tells us that he has been quite consistent for a long time, as political lives go, on a number of key social and economic issues. It is interesting that she uses the exact adjective that I thought of after about 15 minutes of his speech. I swear; I looked at my phone.  It was 15 past the hour. I am not sure if the speech started around 7 PM, or 8 PM. I think that it was 7. Nevertheless, I did look at the phone, and 15 minutes were gone. And he had spent virtually every minute on one subject: the Federal Reserve.

And what was the word that I thought; and Ms. Strassel wrote? "Crank."

The Strassel column also tells us that Dr. Paul has started to soften some of his views now that he, and his supporters, think that he can actually win. He has made attempts to appear less extreme on taxes, drugs, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

But he has not been willing to deviate on his foreign policy views. Ms. Strassel characterizes Paul's position: "fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland."

Predictably, the column focuses on American policies in the Middle East, and she gives us data to believe that Dr. Paul just cannot carry the Republican base. She recites his condemnation of the war in Iraq, the killing of Osama bin Laden and his claim that US policies against Iran have been unduly aggressive.

 "For foreign-policy hawks, this is a disqualifier. It explains why a Washington Post-ABC poll in late September showed that Mr. Paul drew some of his weakest numbers from his own base. . . . Among self-identified 'conservative Republicans,' only 8% gave him a 'strongly favorable' rating."

I think most of us would guess that.    

The Rabinowitz column is less generous. It nods to his libertarian standards, but claims that Dr. Paul foreign policy stance actually assigns blame for evil to the U.S. It bristles at Paul's attempt to deflect the blame for the bitter relationship between the U.S. and Iran to American actions.

Ms. Rabinowitz ties him to that school that educated Rev. Jeremiah Wright. "It's the voice of that ideological school whose central doctrine is the proposition that the U.S. is the main cause of misery and terror in the world." 

I think it is fair to say that she sees the success that the Paul candidacy in having in Iowa as depressing. "It seemed improbable that the best-known of American propagandists for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is."

Now, my focus here is Nuclear Weapons, and I  link claims of  American exceptionalism to IQ scores. I contend that American exceptionalists will sooner or later have to accept the fact that Americans are just not exceptional enough.

American engineers are not so much better than Russian or Chinese engineers that they can make America secure; while trying to make China and Russia infinitely vulnerable. It will never be 1956 again.

If I am right about the fundamental nature of nuclear weapons, the introduction of school systems into the Arab Middle East means the fear that is now focused on Iran, will come to have a more general application. A bigger nightmare scenario featuring nuclear technology a generation from now is practically inevitable.

What now? What is most interesting to me in this phase of the INTERESTING 50 YEARS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS that I am favored to watch?

The first thing involves the Russian nuclear weapons program. The fact is that the Soviet Union collapse has not materially affect the scope, the mass or the danger of the Russian nuclear threat. The Russians know it, they boast about it.  The December 19, 2011 issue of Barron's quotes Putin's comments in a national broadcast to Russians:

  "America doesn't need allies, it only needs vassals . . . They still fear our nuclear potential. We also carry an independent foreign policy."

Those people, mostly conservative Republicans, who toast Reagan and a tough foreign policy assume that America won a Cold War and closed out the Russian nuclear threat. Nothing could be further from the truth. Watch this blog far a more correct analysis of what is the truth with Russia and the nuclear threat to America.

Fair or not, it seems that anti-Israeli hatreds have become the common currency of all the otherwise disparate radical movements. And to be fair I have no idea whether whether different Israeli policies could drain some of the hatreds from the swamp. 

But we do know that young Jews both in the U.S. and Israel, are smart, have been in school for generations, and are committed to the State of Israel. Arabs boys have been in school for a couple of generations, and many appear committed to a Middle East free of Israel. The question: How smart are they? Can they produce a nuclear threat?

Why do I include the Chinese in algebra class in my heading? Because that is the reality which will intersect with every important American military move as far as the eye can see. If the Chinese see an advantage in helping a country with its nuclear program, it knows that it can follow its advantage without being subject to a nuclear attack by the U.S. There is a reason China maintains enough nuclear weapons to destroy the U.S. 

Ron Paul provides a different avenue for thinking about nuclear war. Predictably the pro-Israel, and pro-interventionist wing of the Republican Party will use the label "Isolationist." Compare the laudatory article about Mitt Romney in the December 24-25 Wall Street Journal and the piece on Ron Paul which is directly under it. 

It is interesting that the article on Romney quotes his favorable comment on the foreign policy of the U.S. up to the present president.  Romney said "America was able to define a foreign policy that has guided us well . . ."  

In 1956 the U.S. could have destroyed both Russia and China with a bomber fleet. Today the U.S. can destroy both Russia and China with missiles and nuclear bombs in less than an hour. BUT, Russia and China could similarly destroy the U.S.