1
   

Dem Candidates on Nuclear Weapons Elimination

 
 
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 06:45 pm
By Joseph Cirincione and Alexandra Bell

Four veteran cold warriors this week reiterated their call for steep reductions in the nuclear arsenals with the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons world-wide. A second Wall Street Journal op-ed from former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn builds on their revolutionary article from last year, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons."

In their new piece, they reveal that they have gathered an overwhelming majority of former top national security officials in support of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. It may take a while to get there, they say, but seven former secretaries of state, seven former national security advisors, and five former secretaries of defense have endorsed freeing the world of nuclear weapons, as well as progressive steps to realize this vision. They represent almost 70 percent of the men and women still living who have served in these top posts and are not currently serving in the administration.

Every one of these officials favored building and deploying thousands of nuclear weapons while in office. But they say today's global situation has radically changed. There is no longer a military justification for the almost 10,000 nuclear weapons that the United States fields and the estimated 15,000 held by Russia, many of them on hair-trigger alert ready to launch within 15 minutes. Together these two powers hold 95 percent of all the world's nuclear weapons, with the other seven nuclear-weapon states dividing up the remaining 1,000.

The growing list of supporters for a nuclear-free world includes 17 former cabinet members, as well as former generals, senior officials, non-proliferation scholars and politicians such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). "You have a big vision, a vision as big as humanity--to free the world of nuclear weapons," he told the group at their October conference at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, "Let me know how I can use my power and influence as governor to further your vision." Nancy Reagan also sent a letter of support.

And the support is bipartisan: 53 percent of the cabinet-level endorsers are Republicans and 47 percent are Democrats. Eighty-eight percent of all the living former secretaries of state have given their general support for the project, as have 70 percent of all former national security advisors and 62 percent of all former secretaries of defense. The only former secretary of state not endorsing is Alexander Haig; the only defense secretary hold-outs are James Schlesinger, Harold Brown and Donald Rumsfeld; and the only former national security advisors not signing up are Brent Scowcroft, William P. Clark and John Poindexter. (Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice are currently in office and are not counted.)

Shifting Presidential Politics

Thus, for the first time since the administration of President Harry Truman in the 1940s and of President John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, a call for the elimination of nuclear weapons comes not from the left, but from the moderate middle. This opens up political space for others to embrace a more progressive security agenda.

The effect on the presidential campaigns is already apparent. While Republican candidates, campaigning for the support of the party's right-wing, have not yet moved beyond current policies, former Senator John Edwards (D.-NC), Governor Bill Richardson (D.-NM) and Senator Barack Obama (D.-IL) all promised to lead efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Senator Obama has the most developed plan, based in part on his work with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and a bill introduced with Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). The Obama-Hagel legislation embodies the bipartisanship of the Hoover Institution initiative and codifies most of the group's recommendations, including securing all loose nuclear materials to the highest possible standards, dramatic reductions in nuclear stockpiles, a verifiable treaty to prevent nations form producing nuclear materials for weapons, beefed-up inspections and compliance capabilities; an international nuclear fuel bank to back up commercial fuel supplies, extending the warning and decision time for the launch of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and starting a bipartisan effort to ratify the nuclear test ban.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D.-NY) promised similar presidential attention to preventing nuclear terror and shrinking global arsenals but stops short of endorsing their elimination. In a Foreign Affairs article at the end of the year, Senator Clinton lamented the failure to build upon the profound international unity created after the 9/11 attacks. She promised to seek Senate approval of the nuclear test ban by 2009, the tenth anniversary of the Senate's initial rejection of the treaty. Clinton cited the Hoover Institution initiative, but redefined it before endorsing what she says is a call "to 'rekindle the vision,' shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons."

With the momentum created by these new endorsements, the chances of achieving many of these specific policy goals, such as ratifying the nuclear test ban, are greater than ever. Conservative icons Henry Kissinger, Melvin Laird, and Frank Carlucci all opposed ratification in 1999, but now seem to support it.

As the ranks of this nonproliferation movement continue to swell, a nuclear-free world begins to seem not only possible, but plausible.

A version of this article was originally published at the Center for American Progress
link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 462 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 04:04 pm
None blueflame
Nobody.
Unfortunately.
Thanks for highlighting this topic which was ignored by NYT, WP and other Tom Dick and harry stenographers.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 04:10 pm
(interesting)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 04:46 pm
I'll be damned. That is interesting.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 11:21 pm
"There is no longer a military justification for the almost 10,000 nuclear weapons that the United States fields and the estimated 15,000 held by Russia, many of them on hair-trigger alert ready to launch within 15 minutes."

When was there ever?

It seems like a no brainer, but I'm not sure it is of real consequence, possible, or even desirable.

To eliminate any possibility of nuclear weapon accidents or proliferation it would be necessary to eliminate 100% of all nuclear weapons. Can we even locate 100% of these weapons? How does the leader of any nation know for certain that he is not giving up 100% of his nation's arsenal while others are holding back some portion? When you're not the sitting president or prime minister of a nuclear country I imagine it's easier advocating the elimination of all weapons than it is for the actual leader who has to give the order to destroy the last one.

The years since the first atom bomb was dropped cannot be considered peaceful, but they have not involved any direct wars between any of the major powers. The Korean War might be considered an exception but only if one believes that China in 1950 was a "major power." I have to believe the existence of nuclear weapons has had something to do with this trend. Conventional weapons can still make a pretty good mess of a city, but it just seems that turning New York or Moscow into cinders in seconds is a far more powerful deterrent.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 11:23 pm
eliminate 'em? They're not taking human nature seriously enough. Outlaw guns, melt 'em all down, destroy the blueprints, and some ex-con with a Bridgeport will solve the problem. The M-1 Carbine came about that way. But this is bigger - one shooting and the cops could come in with tazers and stop the show, but one nuclear weapon, that very special one that we can't reply to in kind? Or that when it hits we start building more, and everyone else does too? That is a scary weapon.

Or do we just take a nuke for the good of humanity (you know America will get it) and reply with thermobarics? What kind of pussy nation would do that?

Better to respect the status quo, one group gets an itchy trigger finger, the annihilation will be orderly and predictable. It's monstrous, but it's survivable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dem Candidates on Nuclear Weapons Elimination
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2024 at 07:16:44