Nuclear Weapons & the Next President

One event in 2008 is likely to have more bearing on the survival of the planet than any other. It is the election of the next president of the United States. His, or her, actions could create a dramatic change in US nuclear policy and international relations, and that, simply stated, could alter the fate of our species. For the better.

During this campaign, much has been made about a candidate's ability to answer "the 3 A.M. phone call" in the early hours of the morning and make a good decision about a sudden and serious development in the world.

It's hard to think of a sudden development more serious than a nuclear attack. Such a scenario is often described as the ultimate -- pardon the pun -- "judgment call" for the president.

We often talk about individual character and experience, but miss the biggest part of leadership in the international arena -- policy and diplomacy.

Let's face it. If we get to the point where the president is receiving an urgent phone call about a nuclear attack under way, we are already in a disastrous situation. Large numbers of people will die no matter what the president decides at 3 A.M.

So the ideal isn't so much an individual's grace under pressure. The ideal is an administration's grace in preventative policy-making so that such a nightmare scenario never happens.

Here's the truth: Most of the rest of the world sees the United States as operating a nuclear weapons double standard -- maintaining an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons while insisting that there be no new members of the nuclear club.

In February, Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the solution lay in international co-operation and a new international standard.
"We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for their security," he said. "Ultimately, the prohibition of nuclear weapons should be a peremptory norm of international law, which is not treaty-dependent, similar to the prohibition of genocide, torture and slavery."

Could US nuclear weapons policy move in that direction? It could under a new administration. Would it make the world safer? Of course.

Nuclear weapons are designed to kill civilians and destroy cities. They are instruments of terror. Common sense tells us that. Even former Cold War power brokers like George Schultz and Henry Kissinger recognize that the old-fashioned theory of nuclear deterrence no longer applies. International cooperation to move toward a phased and verifiable elimination of such weapons is a logical step for the survival of humanity.

And the impetus for the whole process could be provided by the next president of the United States.

So why do we get so little media reporting about the candidates' policies on this issue? Nuclear weapons pose the greatest immediate catastrophic threat to the planet. And yet, the presidential debate questions rarely address the subject.

When a question is asked -- albeit an unrealistic, hypothetical one -- there can be interesting revelations.

Last month, as voters went to the polls in the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton was being interviewed on ABC's Good Morning America. She was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

As a 501( c ) 3 educational charity, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation does not endorse candidates. However, in order to inform the public, the Foundation is tracking the candidates' positions on nuclear issues and posting their quotes on our web site, www.wagingpeace.org. Voters can find out what the candidates' stated policies are. It only takes a few minutes. And there are major differences among the candidates.

The Foundation is also gathering one million signatures in its major 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. Each step would reduce the threat from nuclear weapons and so will educate the reader on how nuclear disarmament can proceed. 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.

Why should you bother?

Consider recent history. We went to war in Iraq ostensibly to stop the threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Months ago, our government said it was thinking about starting a second war in Iran. Also to stop the threat of WMD.

Meanwhile, the threat from nuclear weapons proliferation grows faster than ever. Why? Much of the world sees us, yes the United States, as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I think it's time to consider a new tactic.

The United States is seen rightfully as a world leader. So let's lead the world in the right direction. Let's start working with other countries to eliminate nuclear weapons, instead of doing things that make other countries -- and terrorists -- want these heinous devices more and more. Let's eliminate the need for a 3 AM nuclear wake-up call.

Comments

[StevenCrandell]

We should note that destruction techonology has been given up through negotiation. Chemical weapons and land mines are two examples. The international community negotiated and found a way to agree to ban them both. Will it be difficult to do the same with nuclear weapons? Yes. Will it take years? Yes. Is it worth the effort? Yes.
By the way, one of the seven point of the US Leadership Appeal is to control nuclear material so terrorists can't get a hold of it. We need international co-operation to do that, too.
Remember. Once slavery was thought to be absolutely essential to the American and indeed the world's economy. Once people who fought against slavery were thought to be "wishful" and "irrational." Yet, slavery has been banned.
Some things are just plain wrong. Like weapons of mass destruction. Let's get rid of them before they get rid of us.

[KristoferYoung]

Your whole article is based on rational thought mixed with wishful thinking. Great combination!

Isn't it fascinating that many people believe in, and are committed to a need to war and to maintain nuclear weapons.

[57basque]

I was tempted to post War Pigs by Black Sabbath here. But this Bobby Mcguire's Eve of Destruction sums things up. Even if its not a pretty picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmysVoRBgyA&eurl=http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=625613553

I could put a number of other songs from the 7peals of thunder kept secret in revelation 10 for our time, who are Rock and Roll. Do you know songs like Masters of War by Dylan etc etc?

[RussWellen]

To quote ElBaradei again:
"It's hard to tell people not to smoke when you have a cigarette dangling from your mouth."

[57basque]

It makes every bit of sense for all the BOMBS to come apart. I just read that it costs US 100 Million a day just for upkeep of the ones we have. There is even talk of building a more powerful one. That would be complete nonsense. I dream of the day when Mankind will beat their swords into plowshares as Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 talks about. That is the Great Spirits above us will for this Beautiful Planet. Anyone who says others wise, has something in their eyes.
http://my.care2.com/leoburg

[theroyprocess]

re: Nuclear Power & the Next President
Letter to the Editor,
From 1945 on....everyone has man-made radiation in their
DNA. We eat, drink and breath it each day. Invisible, the
perfect killer. Some say it will depopulate the earth.

It cost 2 billion in 1945 dollars to make 2 atom bombs dropped
on Japan. The aim of nuclear power plants is to make plutonium
239 for atom bombs. The trick was to make you pay for your
own doomsday!

Extortion, the big stick of political power, is what sovereign
countries want through nuclear power.

Dr. John Gofman says there is no safe dose of man-made ionizing
radiation. We should not add to it with new nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power is the most dangerous form of electricity. It is the
heat which makes steam that powers electric generators. Albert
Einstein once said, "Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil
water".

Liability is paid by the tax payer under the Price/Anderson Act.
Electric rate payers subsidize nuclear power and waste disposal.
There is big money and political power in nuclear waste, in killing
people, in a toxic regime. Nuclear power pollutes the environment
and will not stop global warming according to studies.

[P8triot1]

The world is sick of Bush and the posturing of a bully. We can make a switch in tactics and work with those who agree on the need to stop nuclear weapons. For a very long time the US was the leader in cutting back on nuclear weapons.

[BrighterStar]

Your whole article is based on irrational thought mixed with wishful thinking. The fact is that nuclear weapons will never be eliminated from the earth. Once a technology is formed it cannot be eliminated through happy thoughts and negociation. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons are not used in the future is to make sure that radical elements are not allowed to get the weapons.

Urging responsible western nations to eliminate nuclear weapons makes no sense. That would do nothing to disuade radical elements to obtain weapons and would eliminate the greasest disincentive for their use. It would be kind of like disarming the police in the hopes that would incourage criminals from carrying weapons.