McCain's Nonproliferation Policy -- It's a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

John McCain's speech on nuclear weapons seems to adopt the narrowest of lenses in dealing with nuclear weapons. Moreover, his proposals -- many of which might sound good -- don't match up with other things he has said on nuclear weapons, on Russia, on Iran and suggests he doesn't really get the complexity of these issues. Lastly, the tone may be better, but many of the proposals -- not to mention his language choices -- are right out of George W. Bush's play book. This may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but it is still a wolf.

1) He wants to work with Russia on arms control and tactical nuclear weapons, but he also wants to kick Russia out of the G-8. Not sure how you get them to play nice on nukes after you kick them in the teeth. Also, Bush adopted a loose standard on counting nuclear weapons and verification. Will McCain (who is now working with John Bolton -- father of Bush's arms control dogma) be any better?

2) I applaud his desire to get tactical nuclear weapons out of Europe, but if we pull nuclear weapons out of Turkey as Iran advances its nuclear program, they are not going to have increased confidence in NATO and the US. This speech, and the references to it, will send shock waves through Europe and and a McCain administration would start in a hole.

3) He does not walk away from the new "reliable replacement warhead" being pitched by the Bush administration. Lots of wiggle room for him, left there on purpose, I would guess.

4) Why is only the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) going to review nuclear policy? Where are the experts on nonproliferation, diplomacy, history, etc? This is the same line the Bush administration gave. In May of 2000, standing in front of Secretary Kissinger and other republican heavy-weights, then-candidate Bush said he would reduce nuclear weapons to the lowest number consistent with U.S. security. Sound familiar? McCain's statement is almost an exact quote. The JCS has set the current floor on reductions. The president sets the war guidance for the level of nuclear weapons, and leaving it to the JCS is a recipe for the status quo.

5) Did anyone else notice that McCain did not repudiate the policy of regime change? I know why Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons. Reducing ours will not get them to change their course. Of course, singing "bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann" won't do it either. Is McCain really suggesting cutting our nukes will lead others to reduce theirs? It's the broader policy that needs changing, not just the number of nukes.

6) Coming out of left field (or from pander-ville) is the remark about international nuclear storage. It is possible that Russia might build a storage facility for countries in East Asia, but McCain seems to be suggesting some other country is going to accept our huge (the world's largest) stock of spent fuel and that this might be a way to avoid opening the spent fuel repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Talk about pandering. Who does he think is going to take our nuclear waste? Even if someone would take it off our hands, the stuff contains about 100,000 weapons worth of plutonium that must be dealt with. Does McCain really want to export that to a country poor enough to want into the nuclear waste storage business?

7) Either you are for the ban on nuclear testing or you are not. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is the most studied arms control agreement in history. It has been verifiable since the 1960s. McCain voted against it. To play the "let's study it again" dance is too cute by half. If the president does not support it, it is not going to happen. Also, McCain seems to be suggesting we should re-open the agreement for new modifications. That is the fastest way to kill it. He also talks about limiting testing. We want to ban testing. We have more nuclear expertise than anyone -- why we would want to make the world safe for others to test nuclear weapons is unclear. Obama and Clinton have said they are for the CTBT and plan to fight for its ratification. McCain has not. The rest of the world -- including the states we need on our side to deal with Iran and North Korea -- are embarrassed that we have not ratified it.

McCain's speech is a feeble attempt to try to tie all Republicans and Democrats into the failures of the Bush administration nuclear policies. Before 2000, the US was on the right track. The regime needed work, but was sound -- more states had given up nuclear weapons and weapon programs in the 1980s and 90s than had begun them. Now that track record lies in ashes -- because of the Bush administration approach, backed by a Republican Congress that killed the CTBT and sought to restrict funding for nuclear security efforts during 2000-2004. McCain is promising more of the same.

Comments

[rudyinbama]

Wow - McCain wants to surrender to Putin!

[Cautious]

Yes- this is what's truly amazing. He wants to continue wasting young lives and treasure in Iraq, even thought that was a mistake in the first place- AND he wants to upset the strategic balance in favor of countries that can't necessarily be trusted not to take advantage of a reduced nuclear presence on our part.

Moving the nukes out of Turkey leaves Israel more vulnerable. "The enemy" truly could laugh and point fingers and tell their people that they've chased us out.

I think Putin may be a truly evil man. He retains the same power he had before, because he was able to pull off a rigged election, just like the Commies used to do. People forget that he's former KGB. It seems now that the Russian oligarchy that used to portray itself as a "Communist" government is chugging right along.

And Saudi Arabia has no particular interest in helping us, because soon we will no longer be their best/only customer. The Russians have developed the design and prototype for a "Generation-5" fighter-bomber aircraft, with stealth capability and long-range targeting, but they don't have the capital to build them. What's to stop the Middle East oil kingdoms from helping the Russians get a cash flow going so that they can build these fighters and sell them, to, for instance, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Dubai, India, China...

This is getting scary. McCain is now doing some "appeasing" of his own.

[Balloonman]

Cautious you against IRAQ War but misunderstand cause and effect. Put out threats get back threats. Our invasive presence anywhere establishes footholds from which to deploy our foreign policy, our military. Nukes in Turkey keep ISRAEL less vulnerable? What IRAN, GAZA STRIP Hamas, LEBANON Hezbollah more likely to say, okay now, obliterate ISRAEL? Please. Reduced nuclear presence, assigned evil take advantage? With no upgrading we got 12,000 home silo nukes, include submarines? Pinpoint any target on earth. Not tactical for real close diplomatic work, out a howitzer barrel or dropped from predator drones but how many nukes it take to fight guerilla terror?

Your view RUSSIA is priority enemy? Defuse it whatever 'diplomacy' it takes. Nukes in Turkey sure helps friendship with RUSSIA. Expanding NATO to include as many former Soviet dominated States is an open handshake eh.

SAUDI ARABIA going RUSSIA? Seems BUSH and Family Company are hugging and kissing cousins. We just gave them, what, 20 billion in military expenditure support? Or 10 billion one way or the other more or less also to ISRAEL. Our balance of power pretty good shape. SAUDI's sort of in our pocket, considering no ARAB really is. Maybe even oil-wise too. Not increasing their spigots flow BUSH and his OIL and MONEY BUDDIES GOT TO BE CLEANING UP WITH THE $120, IS IT, A GALLON AND GOING UP PERHAPS TO $200. Who profits, huh? Oil people network or not? Tell me, I got to know.

[DietrichMoody]

What is your agenda? You want weapons in Turkey? Your feeble attempt to try to tie all Nucler policy failures to the Bush Administration is just as feeble as McCain's attempt at trying to tie failed nuclear policy to both Democrats and Republicans. Please, let the blame float around and around. I don't think nuclear policies were "sound" in the 1980's and 1990's. Sure the United States might have offered carrots to nations not to advance their Nuclear Weapons - that "carrot approach" that Madeline Albright is so fond of. But at the same time the Nuclear Capabilities of other countries went beyond excess - note Carter's "slip" that Isreal has 150 Nuclear weapons. Not to mention, Russia's increase in weapons, France increase, and India and Pakistan. Policies that have only created regional jealousies and animosities. There needs to be knowledge about EVERY country that has them and make sure that they do not share or "STORE" their knowledge with anyone person or country. No Special Treatments. Period. And we are not doing this job, if Pakistan is sharing its weapons knowledge.


It's McCain looking like the phony Centrist War President. His tone's better, the language different but its that SAME THINKING. Hey, at the end of the day, maybe McCain can borrow Bush's Cliff Notes, on the whole subject.

[BethStuart]

John Bolton's involvment in this speech has confirmed that McCain's foreign policy is being driven by neo-cons.

Bolton was the man whom the Senate refused to confirm as Bush's Ambassador to the UN when the Republicans held a solid majority in the Senate.

[minnehot]

The REAL John McCain

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=103193

Can you handle it?

[StevenCrandell]

The key sentence from the McCain speech is this one:

"I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent, that results in making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal, and furthers our global nuclear security goals."

It makes it clear that Senator McCain would support the development of a new type of nuclear weapon.

All he needs is one of several rationales, he says, including the catch-all justification that such a new generation of weapons of mass destruction would further "our global nuclear security goals."

The above sentence also makes it clear that Senator McCain believes that nuclear weapons do act as a deterrent -- though it's unclear who might be deterred. Remember, deterrence does not apply to terrorist groups who are difficult to locate and bent on destruction at any cost.

Building new nuclear weapons for any reason is proliferation. The international community sees this clearly.

If we want to build international co-operation to eliminate nuclear weapons, we must not be seen as supporting a double standard. The US should show leadership on this issue and pledge not to make new nuclear weapons as a step toward creating a world free from them.

[frank1569]

"suggests he doesn't really get the complexity of these issues. "

Forget "complexity of issues" dude - the man doesn't even understand the job he's hoping to be elected for for hell's sake.

McCain, yesterday: ""I am running for the office of commander in chief."

First of all, he's running for President of the United States of America - there is no such thing as a "commander in chief" election. Second of all, someone needs to sit his ass down and re-read him the Constitution. Article II, Section 2: " The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Unless Congress is planning to officially declare "war" on some sovereign nation that simply refuses to do what they're told before Election Day, he won't be "commander in chief" even if - oh please God forbid - he finds a way to win in Nov.

[dratster]

You are absolutely correct in that he is running for the Presidency, but that office does make him the commander in chief ever without a war.

But the author is spot on that he is pandering... How do we have a non-poliferation stategy when we cannot even allow ourselves to admit that Israel is a nuclear power?

And what does reducing down to a few hundred nuclear weapons do in stopping nations with one or a few from wanting more.

And all bets are off with Japan if Korea continues to grow it's nuclear arsenal, wouldn't be surprised if they have already entered the nuclear race.

Senator McCain is quickly showing that despite his years of military service that his understanding of the complexities of keeping the peace is NOT that special.... The real answer is having plenty of experts in all sorts of disciplines that can distill the essentials down to help the President to make an informed decision.

Why does, "you didn't bother to serve and I know better" scare the the $hit out of me.... and with his temper, do we really trust him to keep a cool head and NOT press buttons?

[quaylieb]

Great analysis from someone with the background to know! Perhaps the next time some lunatic in the Bush Administration talks about North Korea the Huffington Post can get you to comment about your experiences in North Korea and utterly false the Republican talking points have been about North Korea for the last 8 year. Maybe you can explain to the readers here how the Clinton era policy was actually working until Junior put his keen mind to the problem and promptly facilitated North Korea getting the bomb.

[arvay]

A suggestion: Obama's nuclear disarmament/ weapons experts craft a position for the candidate that reveals McCain as inept and uninformed on this topic. He's probably as fuddled as he was on Shiites and Sunnis: would be great for Obama to methodically clean his clock on this issue in a major speech. Something like "this is too dangerous for McCain's confused approach." Other reports say McCain says we didn't talk to evil people like the North Koreans, he seems to have overlooked the current successful negotiations. Another major goof.

[Amyfw]

McCain is very confused, on some very specific points. He pledges to eliminate the Robust Nuclear Earth Pentrator program. This program has been dead for several years now. Congress eliminated teh funding years ago, and even DOE does not want to revive it. Talk about beating a dead horse.....

[Amyfw]

McCain is very confused, on some very specific points. He pledges to eliminate the Robust Nuclear Earth Pentrator program. This program has been dead for several years now. Congress eliminated the funding years ago, and even DOE does not want to revive it. Talk about beating a dead horse.....

[Durango]

End the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?

Pure unadulterated insanity.

[NABNYC]

I don't think the U.S. government or people "get it" when it comes to nuclear war. Our government has made no effort to eliminate nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. We're just trying to corner the market on it. Remember, the anthrax that was spread around this country after 9/11 was home-grown, came from our own government's sources. And why do they have sources? To develop weapons using anthrax. Where did Saddam Hussein get the chemical and biological weapons he used against Iran? From Uncle Sam, that's who.

Even the Jimmy Carter nonsense this weekend -- Wolf Blitzer worried that Carter had "disclosed" Israel has nuclear weapons. Everybody knows that, but the U.S. and Israel just lie about it. If Israel has nuclear weapons why shouldn't Iran? It makes no sense at all. The U.S. policy is not non-proliferation -- it's just that we want to have them, and let our friends have them, but nobody else. That's called monopoly. It is not called non-proliferation.

Let's dedicate ourselves to creating a world without war. Well, actually, I guess we can't do that since we're the country starting the wars. So we don't want any oil-rich country to have weapons because it just makes it harder for us to invade, kill the people, steal the resources. The only non-proliferation we see from the U.S. government is non-proliferation of truth, integrity, honesty. For guns and stuff, they can't get enough.

[CTmom13]

Vets for Freedom is a swiftboating group now attacking Barack Obama with a nasty smear ad suggesting that he would put America's enemies first. Apparently, John McCain approves -- he calls the group a "wonderful organization."

In addition four of his campaign officials are connected with the group: Senators Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman, both campaign co-chairman, also both sit on the Vets for Freedom board of advisors. The group's executive director, Pete Hegseth, is on McCain's Virginia steering committee along with the group's treasurer, Wade Zirkle.

All four men are in violation of McCain's recently announced conflict of interest policy, which states: "No person with a McCain Campaign title or position may participate in a 527 or other independent entity that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate."

Earlier this month, the campaign asked GOP consultant Craig Shirley to leave the campaign because of the same sort of conflict. If McCain also asks these four men to leave the campaign, the challenge for him will be to explain he lavishly praised as a "wonderful organization" as recently as April 8.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/mccain-calls-sw.html

[tc399]

Yet people still support him, either because he is white, or because Obama isn't. It certainly can't be because of his clear, well-articulated policies. He doesn't have any. It can't be simply because he is a Republican, because the Republican President and Conggress have effectively ruined us as a democracy over the past eight years. The Presidency is an elected office, not a charter to become Emperor-for-life, throw away the law and disregard the rule of law like Saddam Dubya had done.

Someone is going to be tried for war crimes. Maybe the Ivory tower of congress is soundproof, but they have to come out sometime. Maybe they can hide Bush in a cellar until he is out of power but, if this is still America, justice will be served.

We, The People....the tax slaves....demand that elected officials be subject to the same laws they enacted. If you order prisoners tortured, if you lie to start a war as an ego trip, if you allow Americans to choose between food, or heat, or medicine while you waste a TRILLION dollars accomplishing nothing, you get held responsible. Saddam did.

And THEN, try to pass a law that won't give veterans their full benefits unless they serve TWELVE YEARS in the military, something is seriously wrong, and McCain is buying into all of it.

That isn't America. Let's get out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and read them again.

[Merlin7]

Anyone gullible enough to believe McCain on nukes -- or anything else, for that matter -- is gullible enough to be a diehard Republican. They live in their own little fantasy world and are completely cut off from reality. The only "reality" they can tolerate is fed to them through Fox News.

[fairwitness]

Good analysis, thanks. Now prepare to make this message consice and convincing and saturate the media with it in the fall.

[gymrat23]

Wasn't Obama the Senator that worked with Lugar on securing loose nuclear weapons??? (that's a rhetorical question) Has McCain passed any legislation that he created to deal with nonproliferation??? Seems to me like Obama has the upper hand on nonproliferation!!! It also repudiates Rove's claim that he hasn't worked with any Republicans to pass any legislation. In around 3 years in the Senate he passed 2 very important bills with Republicans: w/ Lugar on loose nukes and w/ Coburn on Ethics Reform!!!