Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002039.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002039.php on line 106
June 09, 2005
10 Questions - 3 (Nukes)
3. Non-Proliferation: What would you really do differently on non-proliferation? Your criticisms center on process more than substance, and its not clear that Bill Clinton’s policies were any more effective than Bush’s. Do you really believe treaties are the answer, and that verification can protect us against dangerous cheaters? You keep saying non-pro's a top priority for you, but how exactly – in a broad sense – would your approach depart from that of the Bush Administration?

Non-proliferation, huh? Tough one. I support it. I don't know how to do it.

My first step of substance would be to actually start disposing of our ridiculously bloated stockpile of nuclear weapons. And to stop research, now, on all the new kinds of nukes we're exploring.

Then I'd meet the other nuclear nations at the table to honestly discuss our options. Lead by example. (To be honest, I don't know if this dangerous spiral can be stopped, but I think it's worth trying.)

(Speaking of hypocrisy.... Telling most of the world that nukes are evil and will stunt your growth, while we openly explore more and newer nuclear weapons...that's world-class hypocrisy.)

Nuclear weapons are difficult to build. They're expensive. They're dangerous. How many countries would be diverting that kind of money from their economies if they weren't looking at the proliferation of all kinds of weapons all around them?

There's no "off" button on an arms race. No finishing line. The Soviet Union fell and we didn't stop producing bullets and bombs. We just found other countries to use them on.

We need to back the world down, not only from the nuclear race, but from the arms race in general. (The world spent over a trillion dollars on arms in 2004 Does that strike anyone but me as mind-boggling? )

It's not actually necessary to have enough bullets and bombs to kill your adversaries fifty times over in order to survive in the world.

Posted by AnneZook at 02:14 PM


This seems to me a subject that Bush will go out of his way to avoid discussing, if only so that he doesn't have to struggle to pronounce "nuclear non-proliferation."

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at June 10, 2005 06:55 PM

ROFL! I hadn't thought of that.

Posted by: Anne at June 11, 2005 10:33 AM