The approach of the next U.S. president has prompted calls from some prominent defense experts to work toward eliminating the nuclear arsenals held by the United States and other nations, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 29).
(Nov. 4) -
Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) have reached the end of their presidential campaigns (Getty Images).
Nuclear disarmament returned as a serious topic of discussion in Washington as the presidential election took off early last year, Reuters reported. It was spurred by a commentary from four veterans of Washington politics who supported an atomic rollback (see GSN, Jan. 4, 2007).
Critics have derided disarmament as an idealistic aspiration, noting the vital role that nuclear weapons play in national defense strategies, the mutual suspicion among nuclear-armed states and arsenal modernization efforts now under way in nations such as China and Russia.
Still, Senator Barack Obama (Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate, backed the goal in September: "I will not authorize the development of new nuclear weapons. ... And I will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of U.S. nuclear policy."
Senator John McCain (Ariz.), the Republican contender, has said he wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to "the lowest possible number."
U.S. voters decide today which man will next occupy the White House.
One nuclear policy expert suggested that disarmament is feasible by comparing the devastating weapons to the gas chambers of the Holocaust.
"Those (gas chambers) haven't been disinvented but we don't have them around now and don't think they should be around and we're prepared to take action to enforce that," George Perkovich, nonproliferation program chief at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said during a talk last week. "The next American president should emphasize the goal of a world without nuclear weapons -- and really mean it."
In the most recent edition of Foreign Affairs, two policy experts urged the United States to voluntarily reduce its nuclear stockpile to 1,000 warheads while persuading the international community of "the logic of zero."
Brookings Institution senior fellow Ivo Daalder and former Atlantic Council head Jan Lodal added that it is "remarkable" how support for disarmament has transcended political boundaries (Susan Cornwell, Reuters, Nov. 3).
Meanwhile, both of the main presidential contenders have expressed support for existing missile defense programs, the Huntsville (Ala.) Times reported Sunday (see GSN, October 30).
In a statement, Obama's campaign said he would "ensure that [missile defense] is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective, and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public."
A McCain campaign statement says the Republican senator "strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses" to help protect the United States and its military and strategic partners.
"Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary," the statement adds.
Riki Ellison, head of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said the main U.S. missile defense programs are already deployed, have extended contracts "and would not be worth the political capital to cut."
"The fact is, our military is deployed around the world and it requires missile defense, so it won't be off the board regardless of who is in the White House," Ellison said.
However, Ellison said that spending for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Airborne Laser programs could be drastically reduced or entirely eliminated (see GSN, Oct. 21).
"KEI is one those that are unproved concepts and it is at the bottom of the priority list," he said. "If the money is going to go, that would be one of the first ones to go" (Shelby Spires, Huntsville Times, Nov. 2).