From WNYC in New York, this is NPR's On the Media.

I'm Bob Garfield.

And I'm Brooke Gladstone.

All options are on the table.

No option can be taken off the table.

Anybody that would suggest that we should take anything like this off the table in order to deter that kind of event in the United States isn't fit to be president of the United States. I said I wouldn't take the option off the table. On the table in order to deter that kind of event in the United States isn't fit to be president

of the United States.

I said I wouldn't take the option off the table.

On the table.

It's a phrase we've been hearing a lot this summer from the president and the presidential

candidates.

This week, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had a public spat over whether or not

nukes should be on or off the table.

And in June, all of the Republican

candidates, except Representative Ron Paul, agreed that using a nuclear bomb against Iran

to stop it from developing nuclear bombs must remain a viable option, or on the table.

But what does that phrase really mean and what are its consequences?

James Walsh is a research associate in international security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He says we should expect to hear much more about the table in the months to come.

If WMD was the language phrase of 2003 on the table has to be the foreign policy phrase of this election year.

This table has magical properties.

Once you're on the table, nothing can ever be taken off.

...