Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNukes and the Elections
In this extra-long (and far from finished) campaign season, we have heard a lot from the candidates. We have seen them in many debates and public forums -- engaging with one another and with the animated snowmen and gun-toting hunters that populated the YouTube debates.
But all this exposure has not resulted in an abundance of substance. Hot issues like immigration and gun control provide juicy sound bites and smoking zingers on both sides but fail to inform voters on the candidates' stances on looming and critical foreign policy issues. Perhaps even more importantly, this flavor-of-the-week approach fails to engage or activate the millions of Americans alienated from electoral politics.
So, we know all that Michelle doesn't like Barack smoking, that John Edwards is a bit obsessed with his boyish coif, that Hillary needs Bill but doesn't want to appear to need him.
We also know that Mormonism and evangelical Christianity need to do some healing after the Romney-Huckabee firestorm, that Romney opposes illegal immigrants but still hires them, and that Giuliani loves his third wife so much he'll interrupt speeches to take her calls. I guess we can be thankful that no one is asking the boxers-vs.-briefs question, but the campaign hit new lows with the focus on Dennis Kucinich's close encounters of the third kind.
In this sound and fury, there is little room for the nuts and bolts of real issues. Whole regions of the world have been largely overlooked -- including Africa (except for AIDS and Darfur) and Latin America (except for immigration). Mega-issues like catastrophic global climate change, or the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and pandemics, have been subject to only passing and rhetorical reference.
On some of these critical issues, the candidates actually have positions and policy solutions, but they don't fit into the sound-bite structure created by a mainstream media on autopilot.
Where Are the Nukes?
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the political crisis in Pakistan should put nuclear weapons back on the front burner. Pakistan first tested a nuclear warhead in 1998 (along with rival India) and is thought to have more than 90 warheads. The nation, headed by General Pervez Musharraf, was a major nuclear proliferator -- selling nuclear material and know-how to North Korea, Libya and other nations. The Pentagon was quick to correct a member of the joint chiefs of staff who raised the alarm about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons after Bhutto was gunned down. A press secretary said, "We have no concerns. We believe [the nuclear warheads] are under the appropriate control."
But, the crisis in the Muslim nation -- which could be on the edge of either a civil war or a renaissance of democracy depending on who you listen to -- underlines the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, and the paucity of true leadership and vision on nuclear issues.
This is an issue where the candidates could really stand-up and stand out.
U.S. nuclear policy: President Bush has overseen a renaissance of nuclear weapons, and under his presidency the nuclear weapons complex has pushed for new nuclear technologies, applications, and relevancies. Will a new president take the United States farther down the road of nuclear menacing or instead complete Ronald Reagan's disarmament agenda?
Global Nuclear Proliferation: Iran's pushing of the nuclear envelope is just a small part of the story. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute names 13 nations that could "go nuclear" in the next decade, including: Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Will U.S. policy encourage or discourage nations from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons? What diplomatic and military tools will the White House have at its disposable? How will the president use those tools?
Nuclear Terrorism: Nuclear material is ripe for the picking. More than 15 years after the end of the Cold War, nuclear stockpiles remain unguarded and unsecured. The threat of a terrorist organization acquiring or making a crude nuclear device nuclear material is real -- and preventable. Can the new president approach the issue from both sides: locking up loose nuclear material to make it harder to acquire, while removing some of the grievances that would drive a group to pursue such a nefarious tool of terrorism?
Where the Candidates Stand
We need to hear a lot more from the candidates on these issues. John Edwards, for example, pledged to "eliminate nuclear weapons" at a forum in August. It was qualified with the phrases "over time" and "lead an effort" -- which means not tomorrow, and not alone. But it is a start. In a long speech in March, Bill Richardson asserted that "It took a Manhattan project to create the bomb. We need a new Manhattan project to stop the bomb: a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide," and went on to say: "We should re-affirm our commitment to the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament." In August, Dennis Kucinich appeared on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" that he would "lead through multilateral nuclear disarmament." He also called threatening the use of nuclear weapons "insane."
Writing in The Nation, Jonathan Schell looks at the statements candidates have made about nuclear weapons. He looks for candidates who have taken up the call for nuclear abolition -- a posture made timely again by an unlikely foursome of Cold Warriors (George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn) who co-authored "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," a now famous January 2007 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Analyzing statements by frontrunners Clinton and Obama on nuclear weapons, Schell finds less equivocation and caution in the junior Senator Barack Obama's assertion (during an October speech) "We'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons.... As we do this, we'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules."
The positions of the Republican candidates are clear, if not often highlighted. Responding to a question posed at a September 2007 appearance in Ashland, New Hampshire, Mitt Romney said: "We're not going to eliminate our supply of nuclear weapons. We're going to maintain our supply of nuclear weapons. It's an important deterrent. It's important for our nation's security."
No one wants to consider impending nuclear doom. It is a lot more fun to talk about sending Hillary to Mars. And there is nothing sexy about the delicate work of nuclear disarmament. But, the candidates have positions on nuclear issues. And as the field narrows in the early primaries, we need to ask them a lot more questions.
FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation.
15 Comments so far
Show AllExcellent article. Some might be interested in a blog that follows nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues, Nukes of Hazard: http://nukesofhazard.blogspot.com/ The blog is a project of the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, which is the sister organization of Council for a Livable World, whose web site is linked to in the article a couple of times. It tracks congressional and presidential action on nuke and nonpro issues and has a wealth of information on exactly where the various candidates stand, among other things.
N. Korea says it fulfilled nuclear deal
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 5, 2008
"The ministry's statement again denied that the North Koreans had aided Syria in a nuclear weapons program, calling that allegation "a fiction." U.S. officials have demanded to know whether North Korea had a hand in building an alleged Syrian nuclear facility that reportedly was bombed by Israel in early September.
The North Koreans said that in response to American suspicions that Pyongyang had imported aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, they had shown U.S. officials a military site at which aluminum tubes were used for other purposes."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usnorkor5jan05,1,6625264.story?track=rss
More bad intel? Need another NIE?
rickway: excellent link! Wow. Every voter should read it, and check out the candidates' responses!! First, I read Edwards' response: the man is a skilled politician, but despite the well-crafted responses, I think he's got his head screwed on straight. Then, I read Giuliani's "response." No response at all. Well, at least he can say he is among the candidates who have "replied."
Then, I read Kucinich's response: the PDF file was a copy of an apparently handwritten response. No ambiguity whatsoever. That's class, that's character! The response from Richardson, Mesplay and Gravel was the same. Schriner too, but he included a link to his website that is pretty low-caliber given the circumstances. You can do better, Joe!
Huckabee's response was as lame as you can get: "oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see it, my email got lost, my secretary put it in the wrong pile, MY DOG ATE IT." Pathetic. But none so pathetic as the utter lack of response from Obama, Clinton, Romney, Thompson, and all the other candidates who felt it beneath them to respond to constituent concerns. Then again, Huck and RRRRRRudy pretty much kicked sand in the face of The People with their non-responses, so they deserve to be in the category of dunces along with Hillary, Mitt, and Fred.
When the elites and their puppets parrot things like "nukes are an important deterrent" they perpetrate a huge injustuce that must be banned ASAP. The lie is a cover-up for the elites' agenda to dominate the world by enslaving one population to threaten others.
A nation of thinking people can defend itself without nukes. First line of defense is supporting worldwide enlightenment and rule of law, second is balance of power, third is the threat of guerilla warfare.
These deterrents avoid the problems with nukes: Degradation of the quality of life for the world's population via hopelessness and fear of nuclear holocaust, enslavement of people to mindless, dangerous industries, and further abuse.
geoff29 said: "It's almost as if the elections could be viewed as a diversionary tactic."
No comment, I just thought that prescient statement should be repeated.
Once we're third world, other countries won't need nukes, ezeflyer
It only takes 3. Delhi, Mumbai and Calcutta.
India is nervous.
Pakistan .... is thought to have more than 90 warheads.
Oh? And where did this number come from? It is more likely to be less than 10. In an effort to relive the good old days of the Cold War, the US defense and intelligence agencies grossly exaggerate this number (as they did with Russia's nuclear stockpile) to ensure continued high levels of funding, and a fog of fear throughout the population.
"He looks for candidates who have taken up the call for nuclear abolition — a posture made timely again by an unlikely foursome of Cold Warriors (George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn) who co-authored "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,""
Not so unlikely when they consider that our soon to be third world country won't be able to push around or invade countries with nukes, like N.Korea.
What me worry? Or how I learned to keep shopping and accept the presence of the bomb?
Boy are we used to these things by now. Were we insane to make thousands? When would the radiation exposure limits be reached if we used some? How many would it take to poison the atmosphere and then water and soil? Think it would take 30,000 bombs to finish us? Maybe cut to the quick and lop off that unlikely zero though it does actually exist. Say we used just a measely 3,000 nukes? Seems better huh? Yeah! Um...? Maybe not.
Oddly there is a lingering suspicion in my mind that if 3,000 nuclear bombs unleashed (on the same day mind you) all that radiation, that I'd not trust breathing any longer and would approach eating and drinking with a vague sense of fatalism, which would probably even ruin dessert.
Let's be REASONABLE...say we? Let's lop off another still unlikely zero and ease things up to more comfortable levels. An even 300! There feel better now? Doesn't 300 nuclear weapons dosing the planet all at once seem more relaxing? Well ...true, I wouldn't want to go for a walk in the rain for a few millenia but still. Um...assuming that 300 major cities were vaporized worldwide... would that affect exports?
All right!!! Fine! 30. Yeah just lose another zero and say a just 30. We could do 30 right? 30 Chernobyls? Well each would be far worse than Chernobyl by a lot. Still we'd live and ... dang that would still mess with exports ...30 major cities? Ouch that'd hurt.
3... there now. 3...only 3? The world survives ...no problem ...unless of course it is you that lived in one of those three cities. Nah! Gee here I am wishing that we'd lose all the zeros and ... I guess I'm stuck on a zero.
Using 30 is what is considered. Would that be enough to reach the threshold limit of radiation world wide? Just 30?
Despite what dougnwagner posted and I know Frida well knows, we have some 30,000. Just us. Does seem a bit much huh? Heck we lost six for a few hours. We actually took it in stride.
We have learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. Frida reminds us... that getting used to all that... is insane.
Yeah.
Ain't we? Heck we lost six for a few hours and didn't bat an eye. Didn't Pakistan and India both develop their bombs after 91, doug?
It's interesting to note which candidates have and have not replied to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's survey on US nuclear weapons policy.
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/surveys/2008_pres_cand/cand_survey.htm
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060523-lugar-obama_bill_to_keep_weapons_out_of_terrorists_hands_heads_to...
Lugar-Obama Bill to Keep Weapons Out of Terrorists' Hands Heads to Senate Floor
Bipartisan Effort Focuses on Antiaircraft Missiles, Stolen WMDs and Conventional Weapons used in Improvised Roadside Bombs
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee today passed out of committee, S. 2566, the Lugar-Obama Act. Modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, the bill was introduced by Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) to expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons.
Lugar-Obama would expand the detection and interdiction of weapons and materials of mass destruction...
In 1991, Senator Lugar (R-IN) and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) authored the Nunn-Lugar Act, which established the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. This program has provided U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle its enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, related materials, and delivery systems. In 1997, Lugar and Nunn were joined by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) in introducing the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, which expanded Nunn-Lugar authorities in the former Soviet Union and provided WMD expertise to first responders in American cities. In 2003, Congress adopted the Nunn-Lugar Expansion Act, which authorized the Nunn-Lugar program to operate outside the former Soviet Union to address proliferation threats. In October 2004, Nunn-Lugar funds were used for the first time outside of the former Soviet Union to secure chemical weapons in Albania, under a Lugar-led expansion of the program.
The latest Nunn-Lugar Scorecard shows that the program has deactivated or destroyed: 6,828 nuclear warheads; 611 ICBMs; 485 ICBM silos; 55 ICBM mobile missile launchers; 152 bombers; 865 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 436 submarine missile launchers; 563 submarine launched missiles; 29 nuclear submarines; and 194 nuclear test tunnels.
Beyond the scorecard's nuclear elimination, the Nunn-Lugar program secures and destroys chemical weapons, and works to reemploy scientists and facilities related to biological weapons in peaceful research initiatives. The International Science and Technology Centers, of which the United States is the leading sponsor, have engaged 58,000 former weapons scientists in peaceful work. The International Proliferation Prevention Program has funded 750 projects involving 14,000 former weapons scientists and created some 580 new peaceful high-tech jobs. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program. They otherwise would be the world's the third, fourth and eighth largest nuclear weapons powers, respectively.
On the web:
Lugar-Obama: http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=248096
Nunn-Lugar Program: http://lugar.senate.gov/nunnlugar/
There is a better way to end American Imperialism than the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that are fearful of the U.S. Will America voluntarily end it's imperial ambitions? No! Will countries attempting to block U.S. economic and military expansion develop nuclear weapons? Yes. Will this lead to a nuclear war? Yes. Solution: Bury our heads in the sand and wait for our butts to vaporize. Smart, very smart !
Nukes are Viagra for the old dudes running the country. You think they are going to give up what helps them to keep it up?
Hoa binh
It's almost as if the elections could be viewed as a diversionary tactic.
One only needs look at, say, Pakistan, and the way in which current American policy behaves, violence and visciousness, and you have to wonder about what's going to happen here in the month's ahead. Or else you buy into it and take it at face value.