No no, this could never be a bad idea, because we’d only use a nuclear first-strike to make sure that bad guys don’t get nukes, see, or when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings.”:

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the “imminent” spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists.

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”.

Under this proposal, this “new NATO” would have been completely justified in launching a pre-emptive nuclear first-strike against Saddam, both because we needed to “protect large numbers of human beings,” AND because Saddam and his mythical WMDs were indeed deemed an “imminent” threat.

“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

So, we have to use weapons off mass destruction in order to ensure that weapons of mass destruction aren’t used. Prevent nuclear war by instigating it. Makes about as much sense as anything else these past eight years.