Just for fun, let's talk weapons of mass destruction.
   The United States is trying to persuade Iran not to build nuclear weapons, and it is trying to convince North Korea not to build any more.
   At the same time, however, the Pentagon wants to research new types to nuclear bombs to add to the U.S. arsenal. One is a nuclear bunker-buster that would penetrate hundreds of feet into the ground before exploding.
   If you have detected a certain dissonance in this message, you are not alone. It seems unreasonable for the United States to ask other nations to forgo the nuclear arms race while it continues to try to lengthen its lead. This do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do strategy doesn't work for parents, but American policymakers seem to believe it will work in international relations.
   This is not just a hypothetical debate. The lame-duck Congress must decide whether it will pay for more research into the nuclear bunker-buster. The House has voted no, the Senate is about to make up its mind, beginning with votes in the Appropriations Committee that could take place this week.
   Utah has two dogs in this fight. The first is Sen. Bob Bennett, who sits on the Appropriations Committee.
   The second is a whole lot of Utahns who sit downwind of the Nevada site. That is where underground explosions probably would test these new weapons if the research ever proceeds that far. Given the state's history as a downwind nuclear sacrifice zone, Utahns should be skeptical of any testing, underground included.
   Bennett argues that testing is not the issue at this time, that a vote to continue researching these weapons is not a vote to test them in Nevada. Much can be done with computer simulations, and the testing question can be decided later, he says.
   That sounds like whistling past the graveyard, especially when, in other contexts, the opponents of test bans have claimed that testing must resume at some time to guarantee the reliability of the nuclear arsenal. In that debate, the party line has been that computer simulations alone are not enough.
   Meanwhile, a vote for nuclear bunker-busters can only be interpreted one way by the mullahs in Tehran and the loon in Pyongyang. It would mean that nuclear weapons are necessary to be a great power, or to deter a great power, and if the United States says anything else, it is lying. Actions speak louder.
   Bennett says that Iran and North Korea will try to join the nuclear club regardless of what the United States does with its own testing. Frankly, he may be right.
   But the only way to find out is for the United States to change policy. We know that continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result is, well, crazy.
   
    * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance 
     with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *