The Presidential Candidates on Nuclear Policy - Republicans

by CKR

With six Foreign Affairs articles and other available material, I’m ready to start analyzing the presidential candidates’ positions. Nuclear policy, of course, it is my particular interest. It also seemed to me to be seemed a fairly limited topic. As I pulled the material together, I found I had nineteen pages of material in Word! So I will discuss the Republicans in this post, the Democrats later.

The Republican candidates present a particularly weak set of positions on nuclear policy. Mitt Romney says nothing at all about it in his Foreign Affairs article. The Republican candidates chose not to participate in a survey by the Council for a Liveable World on nuclear issues and international security.

John McCain claims that

The nuclear nonproliferation regime is broken for one clear reason: the mistaken assumption behind the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that nuclear technology can spread without nuclear weapons eventually following.

This is historically boneheaded. There are about 44 nations that have a level of nuclear technology that could support a nuclear weapons program. Beyond the five nuclear weapon nations in the NPT, only five more have actually developed testable nuclear devices. Three of those additional five have chosen to stay out of the NPT. One of the remaining two (South Africa) gave up its nuclear weapons and opened itself up to International Atomic Energy Agency inspection. That leaves North Korea as a nation in which nuclear technology has escalated to nuclear weapons. Iran is a question mark. Perhaps McCain regards one outlaw and another possibility as having “broken” the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

There is a problem with unlimited access to enrichment and reprocessing technologies that needs to be addressed. However, as James points out, McCain’s response has some serious shortcomings.

Increasing the IAEA budget is a good idea.

Rudy Guiliani emphasizes security within the US.

The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system. America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as "mutual assured destruction" in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes. Nor can it ignore the possibility of nuclear blackmail. Rogue regimes that know they can threaten America, our allies, and our interests with ballistic missiles will behave more aggressively, including by increasing their support for terrorists. On the other hand, the knowledge that America and our allies could intercept and destroy incoming missiles would not only make blackmail less likely but also decrease the appeal of ballistic missile programs and so help to slow their development and proliferation. It is well within our capability to field a layered missile defense capable of shielding us from the arsenals of the world's most dangerous states. President George W. Bush deserves credit for changing America's course on this issue. But progress needs to be accelerated.

An even greater danger is the possibility of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon. Every effort must be made to improve our intelligence capabilities and technological capacities to prevent this. Constellations of satellites that can watch arms factories everywhere around the globe, day and night, above- and belowground, combined with more robust human intelligence, must be part of America's arsenal. The laudable and effective Proliferation Security Initiative, a global effort to stop the shipment of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, should be expanded and strengthened. In particular, we must work to deter the development, transfer, or use of weapons of mass destruction. We must also develop the capability to prevent an attack -- including a clandestine attack -- by those who cannot be deterred. Rogue states must be prevented from handing nuclear materials to terrorist groups. Our enemies must know that they cannot murder our citizens with impunity and escape retaliation.

We must also develop detection systems to identify nuclear material that is being imported into the United States or developed by operatives inside the country. Heightened and more comprehensive security measures at our ports and borders must be enacted as rapidly as possible. And our national security agencies must work much more closely with our homeland security and law enforcement agencies. We must preserve the gains made by the U.S.A. Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation. Preventing a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack on our homeland must be the federal government's top priority. We must construct a technological and intelligence shield that is effective against all delivery methods.

This is all somewhat incoherent. Giuliani seems not to understand that missile defense is still in a developmental stage. He emphasizes preventing attacks without considering the technical or human rights issues. Hopeless.