One aspect of the making of the atomic bomb during WWII was purely political: an Interim Committee Scientific Council, comprised partly of Nobel laureates Ernest Lawrence, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Arthur Compton, and Enrico Fermi, wrote that a political change, a rethinking of national policy, was necessary. 

They recognized that any country having the ability to produce nuclear bombs would obviate that country's necessity to produce conventional, or non-nuclear, war materiel. In other words, having the capability would negate America's one great advantage: its ability to be the world's "Arsenal of Freedom," to outproduce any other country on earth when it came to war materiel. The bomb would allow any nation to wage war "on the cheap."

One view, in order to prevent an arms race, was to give any and all countries the ability to produce nuclear bombs, to create a situation that we today call Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. The great Danish physicist Niels Bohr was a champion of that view. Bohr's view was ultimately dismissed by FDR, then by Harry Truman, both greatly influenced by Jimmy Byrnes, FDR's "Assistant President," and Truman's Secretary of State. (By the way, FDR chose Truman to be his 1944 running mate because he thought Byrnes too conservative.)

An arms race ultimately was instigated. Russia, under its paranoid leader Stalin, stole the technology, and within four years was able to counter what Stalin perceived as America's "knife at Mother Russia's throat" by announcing that Russia could meet America's nuclear capability with its own bomb. A stalemate ensued. MAD ensured that neither country could win a war without paying a heavy price. Russia didn't have to produce war materiel as America could. All it had to produce was a delivery system. Sure, Russia had lots of conventional materiel, but nothing like what America had, or could produce. Russia concentrated on long-range bombers and missiles, and was able to wage local wars, to exert force, and to make threats "on the cheap."

That status quo remained in place until Ronald Reagan proposed the "Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or Star Wars) in 1983. SDI was criticized (mostly by liberals) as being unrealistic, and for threatening to destabilize MAD and start another arms race. But the SDI proposal had its political effect.  Reagan's proposal was perceived by Mikhail Gorbachev as another "knife at Russia's throat" that would obsolete Russia's nuclear arsenal, causing it to no longer be able to wage war "on the cheap."  Gorbachev tried to negotiate SDI away, but Reagan walked out. He then tried to have Russia match America's materiel production capacity while still having some semblance of a peacetime economy. It couldn't be done, and Russia finally folded.

Realize that "cheap" is a relative term. At a Conference on Atomic Energy Control, Jacob Viner, a University of Chicago economist, told the conference in 1945 that “the atomic bomb was the cheapest way yet devised of killing people.” Developing a nuclear weapon certainly isn't inexpensive, but it's much cheaper than producing the amount of conventional weapons that would cause equivalent damage. And from a manpower perspective, nuclear weapons are much cheaper. One completely untrained suicide bomber can deliver it.

Why the history lesson? To establish the fact that all nuclear weapons have an inescapable political component. That political component perhaps explains what currently continues to go on in Vienna. It appears as if fearless leader Barack Hussein Obama, primarily through his feckless puppet Secretary of State John Kerry, is trying to allow Iran to be able to wage war "on the cheap."

Lead negotiator Kerry, in seeking to limit Iran's nuclear capability, has said that he wouldn't negotiate forever if the Iranians didn't negotiate in good faith. But he has done just that! After a year of negotiations and two missed deadlines, he continues to negotiate. "We would be fools to walk away...[.]" said Kerry.

Iran and the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- the so-called P5+1 -- have been negotiating in Vienna under the terms of an interim agreement worked out in November 2013. The interim agreement limited the number of centrifuges Iran can operate to enrich uranium, and limited enrichment to below levels required of a nuclear weapon. It also unfroze some Iranian assets and provided limited relief from sanctions.

The negotiations deadline was November 24. And now Kerry has given Iran seven more months, until June 30, 2015. Will this never end? Is this part of Obama's "Arabs First" policy, or does he believe that his words will dissuade the Iranians from using a nuclear bomb? Kerry has said that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a primary part of President Obama's foreign policy. Oh, really? Is continuing to extend deadlines also part of his foreign policy? It appears to be more "Red Line in the Sand" rhetoric.

In an effort to justify his nonactions and defend the negotiation deadline extension, Kerry said:

'Real and substantial progress' was made, particularly during the past several days of near round-the-clock talks here to close remaining gaps between the two sides, but 'significant points of disagreement' remain.

These talks are not going to get any easier just because we extend them. They're tough.

At the end of four months, if we have not agreed on major elements at that point in time and there is no clear path forward, we can revisit how we then want to proceed.

He even predicts that that "a deal to limit Iran's nuclear capacity could be reached in three or four months, or even sooner." 

Sounds like "Newspeak" from 1984.  Kerry said some meaningless words, and the MSM ate them up.

"We believe that the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is through a verified, negotiated agreement," Kerry said. Why do we (America) even negotiate? Just tell Iran that its entire nuclear capability must be dismantled by a certain date, and if it's not, we will dismantle it. If Iran refuses, just do it!  Remove Iran's capability to wage war "on the cheap" before it's developed. Let's then see if Iran can then produce enough conventional materiel to wage a war. If Iran resorts to terrorism, we can and should inflict pain on that country with conventional weapons until it cries "uncle," is no longer capable of harming us.

Bottom line: it's entirely politics.  "We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means." -- Carl von Clausewitz, On War

But that's just my opinion.

Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decisionmaking. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.