I was just reading about how the U.S. wanted to possibly replace old, aging nukes with newer ones. This was in Scientific American in April of 2007.

Some guys said that the bombs would still work after 100 years.

I was only about 2/3 through the first page when the thought occurred to me, "Could an old nuclear bomb from the 70's spontaneously blow up?"

I remember an episode of MacGyver from the first season in which he and a friend dealt with old cases of dynamite that were leaking nitroglycerin. The nitroglycerin looked like clear hair gel. When a single drop was thrown to the ground, that small amount caused a potentially harmful explosion. Pretty serious stuff.

I was wondering about medical trials for new drugs. You test some people for a few months or years, and then say, "Well, I guess this drug is ok." Then 80 years later it turns out it causes cancer. Like cigarettes! Everyone was smoking back in the 50's, and no one was really aware of the long term harm it could cause.

So it all makes me wonder if there are long term dangers that can build up over time, with respect to aging nuclear weapons, and if there is no way we could possibly prepare for them. Like what if there's an as yet undiscovered state that the radioactive material could reach which would result in a random atomic detonation?

If this were possible, every aging bomb in existence would be at risk, and we've got thousands, right?

I've heard from McCain and others that our time in Iraq may be lengthy. Maybe 100 years. It's been 5 so far. The general consensus of a large portion of the public seems to be, "Let's get out of there now." In the news, you hear things about "major milestones" and "great strides," but none of it seems to be lasting.

I think all the "Mission Accomplished" talk is really motivated by spin doctors trying to shape the reality of the situation in such a way that it meets the demands of the "get out of there" crowd. If it really will take 100 years for things to work out the way we've "intended" in Iraq, then all the milestones will come much later. So why bother feeding us all the "we've turned a corner" rhetoric? Because it's a way to postpone the inevitable.

It's like a mother tells her kid to stop playing video games and go to bed. And he says, "Just a couple more minutes, Mom…"

Two minutes go by. She says, "I mean it, get to bed!"

And he says, "I'm almost to the end of the level!" Either that's what he thinks (and he's wrong), or he's lying.

Another 5 minutes go by. The Mom says, "All right, that's enough. Time for bed."

"But I just found the Sword Of A Thousand Truths!"

Seven minutes later, "Get to bed!"

The party for the war keeps telling the party against the war that "it won't be long now," even though the idea has already been put out there that it could take a lot longer.

But if we stay for 100 years, what kind of resolution could we achieve? I feel like the real major strides are dependent not on us being there (since 5 years hasn't really done the job), but on some unknown factor. Like maybe some agreement must be reached between a number of other countries, or some new technology needs to be invented that solves a major problem.

That could happen, and we're in Iraq in 2020. "War is over! Iraq is all better! Mission Accomplished."

Or we're not in Iraq in 2020, and those unrelated developments still take place. "Iraq is all better! Thanks to [insert solution here]."

I support America, I support the American people, and I support our troops. I believe blindly following the leadership without questioning the status quo is a quick route to an unregulated authority that inevitably weakens the public and the country. I think it makes logical sense that people who truly love their country are willing to judge what those in power are doing to ensure that the state of the nation remains strong.