Would A Pre-emptive Strike Keep Nuclear Weapons From Control By a Madman?

Washington, DC -- Administration officials are reportedly internally warring over the case for pre-emptive actions to prevent an imminent nuclear threat. According to recent intelligence, there is a small but real chance that within less than a year a large nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of an unstable, megalomaniacal leader supported by religious fanatics. Critics of pre-emptive action however argue that a strike will only empower this leader in his fight against more moderate opponents. "Look," said one, "he employs his threats and bluster very shrewdly. His support is exceedingly weak and confined to a very narrow segment of the party who is threatened by progress and openness. Most of the country can't stand him. An attack will only confirm the paranoid fantasies of his supporters, and prevent him by being ousted over his failed policies." Others think the risk of the doomsday scenario is overblown. "Trust me," said a high-ranking official with a deep knowledge of the background facts, "there is 0% chance that Newt Gingrich will ever be President."