The Democratic Presidential Candidates on Nuclear Weapons Elimination

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

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[splashy]

We need to get rid of everything that depends on nuclear power, domestic and weapons. Just put that genie back in the bottle, and get on with alternative non-polluting energy sources and practice war no more with nuclear weapons.

It's idiotic what the posturing of men supposedly claiming to protect their families has brought us to. I wish they would all GROW UP and quit with all the violence they impose on us - mostly women and children - having to endure the suffering and death caused by guys with power issues.

More and more civilians suffer because of the immaturity of those that would impose their will on others. Look at how things have changed when it comes to war: http://www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm

"Civilian fatalities in wartime climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century, to 15 per cent during World War I, to 65 per cent by the end of World War II, to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s."

Soldiers are protected by armor, weapons and shielding, the rest of us are just unprotected targets. All so that the wealthy can gain more wealth.

[shep65]

During the cold war nary a whisper was uttered about the complete immorality of "MAD". Our security or lack thereof was based on the fact that either side could annialate the other side along with the whole planet in the event of a nuclear war. We spent 50 years and billions of dollars proliferating nuclear weapons with our and their fingers on the trigger. It is amazing that no one made a mistake.
Now that the cold war is over it is all coming home to roost. Who knows how many Soviet era war heads are missing and how much nuclear grade bomb material has slipped into the hands of terrorists.
Atleast now many of the people responsible for those policies are trying to make things right.

[Sciguy]

I'd love to know how any of the candidates intend to get rid of nuclear weapons - and I'd love to see them actually DO it. Kentucky still has a chemical weapons depot with weapons that were supposed to be destroyed years ago. The decision to destroy the chemical weapons still stands - as does the supply...

[joebhed]

Joseph C.s article appears a little dated.
He correctly points out that John Edwards is among those who wants to abolish nuclear weapons (and stop nuclear power).
However, he clearly supports the Hagel/OBAMA bill as it backs "most of" the "bipartisan" Hoover Institute's recommendations.
The "Nuclear Priesthood" is manifesting itself in many of these recommendations.
On the one hanbd it recognizes that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is full of holes, but is unwilling to address the tough question that no one is willing to ask: "Can we really do this?" (Yes to Power, No to weapons?)
The first sixty years of this nuclear energy experiment have clearly been a failure.
Anyone can build a bomb.
So now they say that we need a global consortium to oversee nuclear fuel for all of the nuclear power plants that "somebody" will allow.
A little New-World-­Order-ish.
It doesn't address how the NWOs will decide WHERE to store all that fresh nuclear fuel for the next thousand or ten thousand years or so.
(Who did you vote for?)
There appears to be a recognition that the sovereign guarantees contained in the NPT do not work, but what will we do with the NPT?
The tragedy of this and ALL of the other nuclear efforts to date remains the same.
Whenever we try to make serious efforts to control and even abolish nuclear weapons, we also try to make it easier and better for more nations (and consortiums) to have nuclear energy.
This is a fool's errand.
Abolish Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power all at the same time.
Slowly, methodically, purposefully, intelligently, finally.

[Purple Girl]

Well it's about time they paid a little attention.
What did the Peace Sign Mean in it's inception?
How Long has that Symbol been around- about as long as the smily face and the two finger V.
So how long will it take for Former Public Officials admit we were being mainlined with oil while strapped by the corporationists and Religious fanatics- maybe 2100??
DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT BOYS!!! We could have used you to have this epiphany when you were in a position to do something about it. Is this on their BUCKET LIST- Atonement????
Screw You Rotten SOB's in what ever Hellish after life you believe in(This Atheist is praying you are right on that one- BURN BABIES BURN

[Doofus]

Evidently, the trick to making the decision that nuclear weapons are really *bad* is that you must be a 'former' Sec/Defense or Sec/State.

That's very hopeful, as sooner or later all such people become 'former'. Except for the ones who are actually 'in power'.

[Macready]

I would like to see the end of all nuclear weapons and the end of nuclear power plants for domestic use . . .

[TheRationalLeft]

Interestingly the elephant in the room doesn't get addressed: why all of a sudden do the US "leaders" want to rid the world off nuclear weapons?

I think the answer lies more in the international political developments than in the good intentions of these leaders. Iran may not be able to be stopped from moving on with their nuclear plan and if they build it, it compels other Arab nations in the region to consider pursuing the same goal. This would put US hegemony in the Middle East at stake. So therefore all of these charismatic leaders are now calling for ridding the world off nukes. It was a great idea decades ago, now it's inevitable.

http://rationalleft.com/

[FearlessFreep]

"If I were president, I'd get rid of all our nuclear weapons. That's why I'll never be elected president"--Ian Sholes

[jeanruss]

Edwards is the only candidate that understands that nuclear energy is incompatible with human life-there is no such thing as safe nuclear energy-read Walter Russell's "Atomic Suicide" if you want to know the truth-he was the true founder of plutonium and knew what he was talking about. He predicted that without the cessation of nuclear power and weapons, it would be 50,000 years before the planet would have anything alive on it, if they got out of control.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think the Bomb is here to stay, through my lifetime, anyway, they lit off the first ones back in the 40's and there's just been more since then, now more and more countries have the things, and it'll likely continue...too bad they didn't invent something like an ever-sharp can opener, instead...but, whatever. Moot argument.

[LizM]

How does it feel to have to settle for so much less than the very best, as far as presidential candidates are concerned? It would have been nice to see a post or two from you, and others who know better, when it really counted and when some attention might have made a difference.

[Ides]

I don't know why this didn't show up:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/a_world_full_of_virtual_nukes.php

You know, for a guy who wants Universal Health Care, an end to nuclear weapons, and Civil Unions with full rights and privileges, he gets very little play on his policy in the media and plenty of focus on his smile.

[godlessclif]

The Obama Hagel bill? Do we look stupid. Obama is one of the main advocates of building more nuclear power plants and has gotten money from nuclear operator Excelon Corporation. Obama wants the USA to buy Nukes and give the plutonium to Excellon to use as fuel. The possibility of diversion is dangerous. It was the Lugar(R-In­diana)/Oba­ma bill when I saw it. Obama's idea of alternative energy is build more nukes and have fewer anti-war kooks.