To me, the most refreshing thing about the first presidential debate was John Kerry's vow to secure the nuclear material currently rocking loose in the world. Bush rhetoric about WMD in the run up to the Iraq war was unfortunately used solely to justify the war in Iraq, but a lot of what was said is obviously accurate: the world is less safe with WMD in the hands of people willing to use it. George Bush's failure to embrace this as a principle and follow through with the implications of such a principle as a guide indicate to me that his true priorities were war in Iraq first, non-proliferation second, rather than a belief that non-proliferation is the goal and the war in Iraq follows from that priority.
The September 11, 2001 attacks made it instantly obvious that there were people who were willing to do anything they could to inflict damages on the United States and other nations actively plotting and executing their plans in the world today. The only successful strategy for dealing with this newly recognized (but long existing) threat must include an immediate response to those currently engaged in attacking us but must also involve, perhaps to a greater degree, plans to reduce the appeal of such an ideology and to increase the difficulties surrounding attempts to attack. Reliance on any one of these elements or failure to adequately and appropriately deploy them in an integrated assault will at best prolong the conflict and at worse exacerbate it.
Reducing the availability of highly lethal weapons is imperative. Establishing a complete registry and secure repository of existing nuclear weapons material is essential, the sooner the better. President Bush may have increased funding for securing Russian stockholds of nuclear and radioactive materials, but if his plan means that it will take 13 years to fully secure those materials, it obviously is inadequate. His response in the first debates of the 2004 election campaign to Kerry's pledge to lock up the material in 4 years was to tout his own increased spending and question how Candidate Kerry would pay for it. One easy answer is that the costs would be borne internationally. President Bush doesn't like that solution because he can't get any help from the rest of the world after he thumbed his nose at them.
But locking up current materials is not enough. Candidate Kerry went further and pledged to end the current plans to develop new nuclear weapons in the United States. I wish he would go further and pledge to get rid of our entire nuclear arsenal. There is no need for nuclear weapons any more, not even as deterrents. It is impossible to deploy nuclear weapons, even so called "small" tactical weapons. What, are we going to drop nuclear warheads on Pyongyang if they were to launch at us or allies (or provide weapons for someone else to detonate)? I do not see how vaporizing thousands or even hundreds of thousands of North Koreans (or Iranians or Syrians or Saudi Arabians or Russians or ....) is going to make things better and thus I don't see them being used. The money that would be saved from developing and maintaining nuclear stocks could be reinvested in conventional weapons and forces that could be used in devastating response to a nuclear attack. Besides, it is highly unlikely that a nuclear event is going to be initiated against the United States by another nation-state; if it happens it is probably going to be an Al-Qaeda-esque organization, an organization that by its nature makes responding tit-for-tat impossible.
The United States needs to decide what the priorities are and then lead based on those priorities. President Bush felt that invading Iraq was a priority and set about creating policy based on that priority. That was a mistake. Securing and reducing weapons is a plausible and realistic priority that would serve to guide policy. The United States could easily take the lead in ending all research, development, and maintenance of weapons of mass destruction. This would earn the respect of allies and make a powerful statement to enemies who fear our hypocrisy. We would make the statement that we don't need nukes to defend ourselves and that we'd be able to deal with any threat without them.
I'd like to hear any comments you may have.
Posted by Nutrimentia at October 2, 2004 07:29 PM | TrackBack