The Nuclear Abolition Bandagon

Barack Obama's call today for the United States to recommit itself to the goal of global nuclear abolition is an excellent move. In my view, nuclear proliferation policy is the most important issue facing the country, and Obama has not only now moved to the correct position, but shown enough interest in the topic to make this the element of today's foreign policy speech that he wanted to "preview" for the press.

That said, on this issue as on several others, John Edwards can pretty fairly argue that he was here first. I praised him for his Pace University counterterrorism speech about a month ago where he said:

As president, I will create a Global Nuclear Compact to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would support peaceful nuclear programs, improve security for existing stocks of nuclear materials, and ensure more frequent verification that materials are not being diverted and facilities are not being misused. And I will lead an international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Even earlier, during the Q&A to a CFR speech in May Edwards said:

Well, let me say first, I think I would want to associate myself with the concepts that are conveyed by Kissinger, Sam Nunn and others in the op-ed piece. I thought it was very thoughtful. And I think essentially what they said if I remember -- I don't remember the precise language -- was that we should aspire to a nuclear-free world. I agree with that. Now, there are a lot of steps that have to go between here and there. Some of them are pretty obvious, which is America should not be building new nuclear weapons. And then I think America should be doing things like leading an international effort to close the holes in the NPT. There are clearly serious flaws in the NPT. And I think America, leading an international effort to reduce the supplies nuclear sense in the world -- all aimed at the general goal that's described in that piece that you just spoke about.

The op-ed in question can be read here, and that's essentially the policy Barack Obama is now endorsing as well (although, to be fair to Obama, he's also said good things on non-proliferation in the past).

Comments

Good for both of them. I'd be surprised, however, if we see anything similar coming from the Clinton camp. "You never know" is their guiding principle when it comes to power in the hands of the executive, and who wants to give up toys as pretty as nukes?

Posted by Christmas | October 2, 2007 12:34 PM

Isn't this Edwards' big problem: he's always first but no one is really paying attention to what he's saying. That's unfortunate. I wish that he would throw in with Obama and take this nomination (Obama/Edwards 08). Pipe dream, I know, but neither is showing strength enough to overtake the Borg....

Posted by Keith | October 2, 2007 12:39 PM

That said, on this issue as on several others, John Edwards can pretty fairly argue that he was here first.

Obama could, in turn, argue that he has been involved in revising and strengthening Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction since he first came to the Senate. This is one of those places where the "first" game makes no sense at all. Obama is taking a position that is consistent with his legislative record dating back to his first relevance in international politics, not a position derived from Edwards'. They are both right.

Posted by Kimball | October 2, 2007 12:55 PM

This is consistent with what Obama said in April of this year:

"Finally, if we want the world to deemphasize the role
of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must
lead by example. President Bush once said, "The United
States should remove as many weapons as possible from
high-alert, hair-trigger status - another unnecessary
vestige of Cold War confrontation." Six years later,
President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will.
We cannot and should not accept the threat of
accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. We can
maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our
security without rushing to produce a new generation
of warheads."

Posted by Geek, Esq. | October 2, 2007 1:00 PM

Christmas, it seems like even Clinton could stand to give up most of those toys, when we have thousands more nuclear weapons than we could ever use. But you're probably right that she won't.

Posted by KCinDC | October 2, 2007 1:02 PM

You could make a solid start by calling on Israel to give up its nukes in return iron-clad, inspection-enforced guarantees that Iran will never develop a bomb.

Of course, neither Obama nor anyone else would ever have the courage to even suggest this clear step toward nuclear disarmament. Which is one reason why a "nuclear-free" world is such a fantasy.

Posted by mq | October 2, 2007 1:08 PM

Bandagon? Is this some obscure reference to Amanda Marcotte?

Posted by Clark | October 2, 2007 1:09 PM

Ok.. that's it. I am sold now on Obama (the best centered Republican.. eh Democrat in ages). But I hope that he also considers fading out nuclear energy as it poses the very same risks as weapons (eg Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. ALL started with "civilian energy").

Here is a glimpse of the potential externalities. Just like oil independence must have a price tag for the DoS/CIA/Pentagon - so must nuclear? Even more so?

We should quantify those costs and pass them on to green energies like solar? Not just the CO2 costs but also the reduced risk of a dirty bomb in NY or DC?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 2, 2007 1:46 PM

Kimball got it right. Not only has Obama been working on this issue in the Senate, he campaigned on it in 2003-04 when running for the Senate. Much like Obama taking an idea from his own economic adviser, Austen Goolsbee, that Edwards had also used, the notion of who was here "first" is completely irrelevant here. It's complete folly to assume this is some position taken with election position jockeying in mind when it's completely consistent with his rhetoric and record for the past 4 years.

Posted by mop | October 2, 2007 1:53 PM

It's certainly a goal worth pursuing, but given that of of the few things that gives Russia any power is their nuclear weapons, it'd be surprising if much progress could be made. Who knows? Maybe if the price of oil gets high enough, Putin Inc. will be satisifed with just being oil titans, but I doubt it.

Posted by Will Allen | October 2, 2007 2:22 PM

hm, that's funny, i remember all sorts of commentary about nukes from Obama pre-May. i mean, a post about "Edwards did this first" might mean something if a candidate notably changed their stance in response to that person acting first, but this is what one could have expected Obama to say anyways, so it doens't really mean anything to say Edwards "said it first", which is itself highly debatable.

Posted by onceler | October 2, 2007 2:36 PM

"In my view, nuclear proliferation policy is the most important issue facing the country"

Uh, hello? Global warming? You're rating the possibility of a nuclear explosion above the near-certainty of civilizational collapse??

Posted by arbitrista | October 2, 2007 2:50 PM

Arbitrista, if civilizational collapse is a near certainty, then nothing at all is important.

Posted by Will Allen | October 2, 2007 2:59 PM

C'mon, Matt, you can do better than that. Kucinich was the first on nuclear abolition. 109th cong., H. Res. 950, for example.

Posted by Mellifluous | October 2, 2007 3:18 PM

Somebody please pry the question mark out of Hugo's keyboard. Leave it on a high shelf with a note to his mother explaining that she shouldn't give it back to him until he learns how to use it properly.

Posted by Njorl | October 2, 2007 3:21 PM

That's great. I look forward to the speech. I still think that John Edwards has the best shot at making this happen as with other policies. Edwards policies are woven into his central vision of an America that takes its place as a partner in the world, not a dominator. While Bush and some Democrats believe in expanding countries that have nuclear power plants, Edwards idea has made a strong commitment to saving the planet from war and global warming. And the big plus is that He's got the best speaking ability to persuade others to go along with him. He's steely and smart without a whiff of arrogance.

Posted by feral cat | October 2, 2007 3:25 PM

Hugo Pottish - But I hope that he also considers fading out nuclear energy as it poses the very same risks as weapons (eg Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. ALL started with "civilian energy").

The US uses 108 Quads (Quadrillion BTUs of energy) a year. Immigration will make the US a nation of 363 million by 2030 and 420 million by 2050 requiring between 122-128 Quads even with a 20% conservation savings. "Exciting alternative energy sources" mostly excite the technologically clueless with no knowledge of the drawbacks - they are mostly Lefty fairy dust. They sound good, but economists don't see any way - given the cost, unreliability, inability to exploit them on a mass scale - that they will add more than 15 Quads by 2050.

Meanwhile, oil is projected to decline from 41 Quads to 12-15 in annual use.

That means you have two choices: Coal and nuclear. Coal puts out 40% more CO2 than oil for the same energy. Nuclear puts out Zero.

Make your choice.

**********************

Pottish is also clueless on civilian nuke power as the 1st step to nuke weapons programs. None of the nations he mentioned, or the US or Soviets or Brits or French started with "civilian nuclear energy (plants)".

The two are not the same. A nation can get enriched fuel and run reactors under IAEA sanction and oversight and be absolutely no risk to get their own bomb or proliferate.

Enriched fuel cannot be disassembled and the 3% U-235 separated. Not without a full enrichment program. Reactor fuel burned past 7500 full power hours - something the IAEA monitors and ensures happens with each fuel stick put into a reactor in NPT signatories - cannot be used for weapons. Civilian reactors burn fuel 12,000 to 14,000 effective full power hours.

(Nuke bombs require 93% Pu-239 or more. Civilian fuel assemblies have less than 85% Pu-239 after refueling and 13-14% Pu-241, which acts both as a premature chain reaction initiator before fuel is explosively compressed into a bomb configuration and as a chain reaction poison by absorbing a large percentage of neutrons without fissioning)

The path to a bomb requires a native fuel enrichment program like Israel, India & Pakistan and S Africa developed. Then they can take two paths - continue enriching right to 90% -plus HEU, OR - put enriched fuel into special reactors designed to run less than 6,000 EFPH then construct an elaborate, very expensive Pu-239 reprossing and separation industry.

Absolutely unrelated to building and operating a nuclear power plant generating electricity. Which is a giveaway on Iran - it is not trying to build civilian plants - the Russians stopped building Bushar reactors because Iran stopped paying them - it is putting it's money into enrichment and enrichment only.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 2, 2007 4:47 PM

John Edwards offered a plan for nuclear non-proliferation in 2003.

Here's what the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said with regard to it:

On December 15, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards presented a comprehensive plan to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Edwards' policy establishes new standards and safeguards to stop the spread of unconventional weapons, gives the international community new tools to punish nations that violate these standards, and improves America's ability to become an international leader in this effort. Governor Howard Dean and Senator John Kerry also recently advanced strong, new proposals. Below, we summarize each of the three initiatives, and we will track all of the candidates' positions though the campaign.

Edwards' speech was the most comprehensive and far-reaching of three proposals. He offered a five-part strategy designed to bolster the Non-Proliferation Treaty. His plan includes:

1.) Creating A New Global Nuclear Compact

Within six months of assuming the presidency, Senator Edwards' would convene leading nations to develop a new compact that would reinforce the NPT. This compact would heighten security for existing nuclear facilities and materials; ensure more frequent verification that nuclear facilities are not being misused; authorize international inspectors to mount no-notice challenge inspections in countries that have a record of non-compliance; set specific limitations on the capability of nations to produce nuclear materials and increase the international community's role in providing nuclear fuels for peaceful programs; and authorize strong, immediate multilateral penalties aimed specifically at the military capabilities of any nation that quits the NPT. Edwards said:

"Right now it is too easy for a country to cheat or use a legal civilian power program as the jumping off point for an illegal military one; by withdrawing from the Treaty on short notice and having a weapons capability within months. We cannot accept the false choice between the administration's dangerous doctrine of preemption and a multilateral regime that isn't up to the current challenge. That is why I will create a Global Nuclear Compact to reinforce the NPT. The Compact will close the loophole that allows civilian nuclear programs to go military. We must reinforce the NPT by creating a Global Nuclear Compact to meet the needs of our times-keeping the capabilities and materials required to make the world's worst weapons out of the wrong hands."

2.) Triple Funding for Nunn-Lugar Programs

Edwards would secure and eliminate former Soviet weapons by the end of the decade by tripling funding for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs (CTR). Edwards plans to fund this increase by canceling the Bush Administration's plans for new nuclear weapons and cutting spending on the national missile defense program. He also intends to fully implement the G-8 Agreement reached last year and expand CTR programs beyond the former Soviet Union - to countries like India and Pakistan.

3.) Create International Norms Against Nations that Violate Non-Proliferation Agreements

Edwards proposes ending the North Korean nuclear program and preventing other states from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, working through the United Nations Security Council and using other mechanisms to establish international norms that treat countries that violate non-proliferation treaties, as criminals.

4.) Improve Intelligence Capabilities to Understand and Respond to WMD

According to Edwards, the "intelligence failure" in Iraq and the September 11 attacks highlight the urgent need to improve domestic intelligence capabilities. He plans to create a new agency to combat terrorism and reform both technical and human intelligence related weapons of mass destruction.

5.) Appoint a High-Level Non-Proliferation Director

This official would bring focus and energy to national non-proliferation efforts and consolidate the work that currently takes place under six different agencies.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/resources/Analysis/edwards.htm

Posted by EricD | October 2, 2007 6:04 PM

Here's the part Matt didn't think was important enough to quote:

"In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed."

So once again, Matt falls for some rhetorical bullshit. Just like Hillary Clinton is "supporting" Webb's bill to prevent an attack on Iran - a bill she knows has no hope of passing - Obama is claiming to be for "nuclear disarmament" - and the most pressing "nuclear disarmament" issue just happens to be...Iran.

Which has no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons program.

But Obama believes we must apply "pressure and sanctions" on Iran in order to achieve...what?

While ignoring what happens when Iran CAN NOT and DOES NOT suspend enrichment.

Suckers. Guys like Matt, I mean, toss them a bone, they roll right over and put their paws in the air...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 1:25 AM

Ah! mq hits it on the head.

No mention of Israel's nuclear arsenal anywhere.

Chris Ford:
"Which is a giveaway on Iran - it is not trying to build civilian plants - the Russians stopped building Bushar reactors because Iran stopped paying them - it is putting it's money into enrichment and enrichment only."

Bullshit. First of all, Bushehr CANNOT be used to produce nuclear weapons. The fuel cannot be enriched past some 3.5% because of the design of the reactor and the fuel must be handled in Russian-designed containers so without Russian support, Iran can't do anything militarily with the Bushehr reactor.

Russia also will not ship fuel to Iran unless it is IAEA sealed, which at present it is not - which is one reason why Bushehr will not be on line until next fall at the earliest.

Also, Bushehr is on track to be completed - it has NOT been stopped. Russia has stated that it has no political problems with completing the reactor by next fall. At the same time, the Iranians are pressing to speed that up, but the Russians will not ship the nuclear fuel until the IAEA seals it. Given the problems with Iran's past activities that the IAEA wishes to clear up, probably the IAEA is in no hurry to enable Bushehr as a means of prodding Iran to clear up the old issues - which Iran has agreed to do over the next two or three months, no doubt as a result of the fuel shipment delay.

So, as usual, Ford is full of it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 1:33 AM