Toward Disarmament

Lord knows I don't think much of John McCain's foreign policy vision, but Mark Goldberg's right to say that he deserves praise for this idea:

We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own. Forty years ago, the five declared nuclear powers came together in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged to end the arms race and move toward nuclear disarmament. The time has come to renew that commitment. We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.

Barack Obama and John Edwards earlier endorsed this same vision during the Democratic primary campaign. Hillary Clinton, somewhat distressingly, has never really managed to join Obama and Edwards in taking this important step. Instead, she offered up the idea that "Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to 'rekindle the vision,' shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons" when, in fact, what they called for was what McCain and Obama and Edwards have all called for -- namely a move toward universal disarmament.

Unfortunately for the country and the world, other aspects of McCain's foreign policy make it very unlikely that he could realize this vision. The sort of confrontation McCain is envisioning with Russia, and his commitments to both national missile defense and unilateral preventive war as a tool of non-proliferation policy would almost certainly undercut this appealing aspect of his vision. See, for example, this critique from Heather Hurlburt and Rand Beers for the basic reality that McCain would be a dangerous, dangerous leader for the country.

National Archives photo of Operation Ivy courtesy of PING News

Comments

This is the beginning of McCain's march to the middle. From here on out, he will be empasizing his more moderate views and hiding some of the more extreme positions he took in the primaries. Not surprising.

Posted by Marvy | March 27, 2008 12:21 PM

Suddenly, all sorts of war-mongers are talking about nuclear weapons and I am supposed to take this seriously. Nonsense. John McCain only wishes more of every type of war-making armament, so why pay attention to drivel about nuclear weapons? When any of these war-mongers talk about our leaving Iraq, then I will pay attention to any talk of disarmament.

Posted by Jennifer | March 27, 2008 12:31 PM

As for Hillary Clinton, it isn't surprising that all she suggests is to name a committee staffed by all the old names from the old generation that got us into this mess in the first place. That seems to be Hillary's great idea for everything.

And I hate to say it, but of all the candidates, the one I believe would be most likely to use nukes would be Hillary. She really is a totally political animal, and would use nukes if she thought it politically beneficial at the time.

Hillary and McCain would be disasters waiting to happen in the White House. That's why they were partners in getting us into our current disaster in Iraq.

Posted by cm | March 27, 2008 12:42 PM

Reducing nuclear arsenals is all fine and well, but what numbers does McCain et al have in mind? The U.S. and Russia are now far in the lead. If the reductions end up leaving the U.S. and Russia still far in the lead, I doubt if the rest of the world will be overly impressed.

Posted by A. Halsey | March 27, 2008 12:50 PM

Give McCain props on recognizing the role of public diplomacy, too. Another area where Obama is even better, and Clinton is completely silent.

Posted by Deborah | March 27, 2008 12:55 PM

He probably just wants to go for universal nuclear disarmament in order to make full-scale war between industrial states "viable" again.

Posted by implied otter | March 27, 2008 12:56 PM

George H.W. Bush's _unilateral_ nuclear reductions -- echoed almost immediately by the Soviets -- remain a truly impressive act of his presidency.

Posted by Sanjay | March 27, 2008 1:28 PM

McCain's ideas of diplomacy include remixing Beach Boys songs into threats of war. Why should I believe him when he says he wants to listen to other countries?

Posted by Monster | March 27, 2008 1:32 PM

There have been plenty of votes re: nuclear weapons (bunker busters, testing, etc) over the course of the last 10 years. I'd bet 2 to 1 that McCain was on the wrong side every time.

Posted by Mark | March 27, 2008 2:04 PM

Suddenly, when the world's largest nuclear power decides to get its war on, and announces its intention to preemptively strike any country it deems a possible threat, and even makes noises about using nukes against one such country, the rest of the world decides they had better nuke up.

Coincidence?

Posted by Brautigan | March 27, 2008 2:24 PM

Drastic reduction in number of nukes? Good. Total disarmament? Bad. Best way to avoid nuclear terrorism is MAD still. I never understood why that didn't apply to Saddam.

Posted by Russell | March 27, 2008 4:04 PM

"Best way to avoid nuclear terrorism is MAD still."

Two comments.

One, it's highly unlikely that any state is ever going to engage in "nuclear terrorism" for precisely that reason. More importantly, "nuclear terrorism" is not a state weapon because 1) it's too easy to trace, and 2) a single nuclear weapon is not going to alter the balance of power significantly between a state like the US and just about anybody else - even if you nuke Washington. So there's little reward for massive risk, even if the state attacked has no nukes.

Two, the non-state actors most likely to try "nuclear terrorism" are by definition not going to care whether the state they're operating out of is threatened by US nuclear retaliation. They might even welcome it as long as they don't get hit.

It's also unlikely that the state they're operating out of can necessarily prevent them from doing it. Which means a nuclear retaliation on that state would be essentially an over-reaction - much like the Afghan war on the Taliban was an over-reaction to 9/11.

Bottom line: MAD is not relevant to "nuclear terrorism". Disarmament would be better than MAD for both scenarios, simply because it's less likely that a stolen nuclear weapon would be used for terrorism.

This is why Israel's undeclared and unsupervised nuclear arsenal is THE biggest threat for nuclear terrorism anywhere in the world. If some Arab terrorist group manages to steal an Israel nuke of any size, even if they can't figure out how to fire it, it would seriously destabilize the region. And if it were fired either against Israel, the US or another country, it would be even worse. Israel's arsenal must be eliminated to further the cause of a nuclear-free zone in the ME.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 4:14 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

As usual, the boards' favorite felon joins the 100% wrong club. The most dangerous stockpile of nuclear weapons is in Pakistan which is barely keeping its head above water relative to an Islamacist takeover. Mr. Don Williams hero, Osama bin Laden is far more likely to obtain a nuke from Pakistan then from Israel or India for that matter.

Posted by SLC | March 27, 2008 6:24 PM

Man, another Operation Ivy shot? Someone needs to do a search on GIS for "Crossroads Baker" or "Mururoa" or "Peacekeeper Reentry" for real awesomeness. And if you're really into the towering fluffing mushroom cloud, noting beats "Hardtack Oak." I also have a thing for W54s, both the arty and backpack version.

Posted by Seth | March 27, 2008 9:03 PM

Hey, SLC! Where you been, homey?

Caught that Israel reference in your search engine, did you?

I never suggested Pakistan's nukes are more secure than anyone else's. But Israel's nukes are perfect for terrorism - because who is the US going to attack if one gets stolen and set off? Israel? I'd say Israel should then be forcibly disarmed of its nukes, yes, but most people wouldn't.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 28, 2008 12:28 AM