Nuclear weapons pose the ultimate test of presidential judgment. Once launched, these weapons change world history forever.
More than 70 percent of Americans want to get rid of all nuclear weapons under a verifiable, internationally-agreed regime, according to a major poll last year. But even under the best of circumstances nuclear disarmament -- or even serious progress towards nonproliferation -- will take years.
In the meantime, the US president will have his -- or her -- finger on the button, wielding the ultimate decision of whether and/or when to use our nuclear weapons.
Makes you think, doesn't it.
Now read these direct quotes from the vice presidential debate:
Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period. Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry. " -- Gov. Sarah Palin
"...With regard to arms control and weapons, nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported. John McCain has opposed amending the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty with an amendment to allow for inspections." -- Sen. Joe Biden
Vice presidents are elected so they can serve as president if required.
Whose finger would you want on the button?
Of course, that is a decision for every voter to make according to his or her own conscience.
Both presidential candidates claim to support the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons -- with Senator Obama espousing the idea of taking of nuclear weapons off high-alert and Senator McCain talking about reducing the number of our weapons.
But it is worth thinking about what other experts on the subject think. Particularly about nuclear deterrence.
This from former Secretaries of State and Defence and from a distinguished former Senator:
"The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective." -- George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn
From a Republican President:
"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely." President Ronald Reagan
And from the scholarly voice of a person who has studied the issue for the past 25 years:
"The threat of retaliation to prevent an undesired act is generally referred to as deterrence. When the threat is based on nuclear retaliation, it is referred to as nuclear deterrence. History has demonstrated on numerous occasions in the post-World War II period that nuclear weapons are not an effective deterrent to conventional attacks, nor has the possession and implied threat of nuclear weapons use led to victories in wars against non-nuclear weapon states.
The greatest shortcomings to deterrence are that it requires three highly improbable conditions: first, clear and effective communications concerning intentions; second, that the will to carry out the intentions be believed by one's enemy; and third, decision-makers who act rationally under all circumstances, including those of extreme stress. As we know, there are numerous barriers, psychological and technical, to clear and effective communications. It is only natural to doubt that any country would carry out an act so horrendously immoral as causing the deaths of countless millions of innocent people. Finally, rationality is not to be counted on in all decision-makers at all times, especially in times of crisis. " -- David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
And the question remains, who do you want a heartbeat away from controlling our nuclear arsenal? The answer voters come up with in November could change the course of the world.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan educational charity that seeks a new US nuclear weapons policy. The Foundation is gathering one million signatures in a public education campaign, US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World -- An Appeal to the Next President of the United States. The text of the Appeal sets out seven prudent steps -- such as de-alerting nuclear weapons -- that would make the world safer. The names will be delivered to the White House on Inauguration Day January 20, 2009.
People can read the US Leadership Appeal and sign on at www.wagingpeace.org/appeal.
