I'm sure everyone caught it during the debates... both candidates suggested that Nuclear Proliferation was the "Greatest" threat facing America. I for one am completely shocked that nobody has commented on this because for the last three years we have been inundated with politicians and government officials informing us that terrorism itself occupies that role.

Now, ignoring the people would simply say the two are the same (which is so intellectually fraudulent a position it is not worth considering)

What implications does this revelation have

1) for the War on Terror
2) the election
3) U.S. Foreign Policy

As a sort of side-question;

What is the significance of the fact that this is being largely ignored by the media and American public?

Debate transcript
The question was asked of Kerry:


Kerry was using it as a slam on Bush. It was a new angle on an old problem and a new claim that Bush was making us less safe.

Bush's response?

It seems Bush was prepared for this. I am sure he would not have been able to quote a 35% increase in the non-proliferation budget if he hadn't specifically prepared for such a question.

There are two angles to weapon proliferation. One is new states acquiring WMDs. The other is terrorists acquiring WMDs.

As far as states, and specifically "rogue" states getting nukes there is a certain amount of history as to how to deal with that sort of development. The MAD (mutually assured destruction) theory in some ways works better with smaller nations and in some ways doesn't work as well.

As far as terrorists are concerned, I think the President has been clear that the real fear of terrorism is another 9/11 type attack, but this time involving WMDs. The problem is two-fold: one, terrorism itself, and two WMD-equipped terrorists. I think Bush has been clear about these two facets of the threat that America is facing.



1) What implications does this revelation have for the War on Terror

Keeping WMDs out of the hands of terrorists should be one of our top goals. I think it IS one of our top goals. It was one of the main reasons given for going into Iraq (rightly or wrongly).

2) What implications does this revelation have the election

For the election, I think Bush should hammer Kerry on his North Korea statements. Most foreign policy authorities think that bi-lateral talks between the US and North Korea is not the right way to go. I would expect that it would be John Kerry who would back the multi-nation talks between North Korea and those (six?) countries that are working to solve this problem. China and Japan (and the obvious, South Korea) must be involved in these talks. If I were Bush, I would make this more of an issue. The whole thing is a bit complicated to explain easily, however, to the average uninterested American.

3) What implications does this revelation have U.S. Foreign Policy

Weapon proliferation has been a concern of the US for decades. It isn't a big change. What is a change is the implications that terrorists with these weapons pose. Since the terrorists have already demonstrated that they will die for their cause, it opens up a whole new avenue of deployment that does not involve long range missiles. It makes us more vulnerable. It is one of the reasons that we need to remain on the offensive against terrorists.

I find it quite interesting during the debate Kerry critized Bush for protecting Oil and not the Nuclear of Iraq. KERRY: "There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities."

Correct me if I am wrong, but Iraq had no nuclear plants. Isreal destroyed all of Iraq's nuclear plants. So what were suppose to protect?

What implications does this revelation have

1) for the War on Terror
2) the election
3) U.S. Foreign Policy

1) Nuclear weapons should never be in the hands of terrorist.

2) The election should be determined on a vote for the person who would protect the US from Nuclear Warfare, not remove its Nuclear program

3) This should make people more aware that America is not an isolationist country. People should stop forcing the hands of politicians like Kerry who base their decisions on polls to remove troops from positions in the world and stopping the Nuclear and missle defense programs.

What is the significance of the fact that this is being largely ignored by the media and American public?

This is Kerry weakness. Stopping the nuclear program does not stop other more dangerous countries like North Korea and Iran from continuing their own nuclear programs. Kerry wants to speed up controling nuclear facilities in Russia. Where is the Bill? Where is the money being directed. The man has spent 20 years in congress and has yet to introduce a Bill that would speed up the control. Why? Does he really want to do this?

Ok, I think you're both ignoring a key element of this discussion, and I can only assume that in Yehoshua's case it is intentional (given the vociferousnous of his post.)

In the past three years whenever either Kerry or Bush was asked what the greatest threat to American Security was, they both answered "Terrorism", or used a similar term. Now all of a sudden it's Nuclear Proliferation. I wasn't so much interested in the logistics of Nuclear Proliferation, but rather this sudden and abrupt switch in rhetoric.

Please try to explore the questions in that light, since it was what I both wrote and intended:



I for one find it extremely alarming that the language of the securty debate just changed overnight.

Here's an editorial on what I found interesting (rather hte only thing I really found interesting) during the debates:

America's big worry



Judging by the cheerleading in this discussion, and the lack of attention elsewhere I would say that Americans didn't notice; which is alarming in and of itself.

I was just looking for a forum to post that comment in.



It is odd to hear you say "overnight." There was the Senator Colorado who was instrumental in reenacting the Missile Defense System and the possibility of "Star Wars." As mentioned by Kerry in the debate, the US is working on a Missile Defense System and Nuclear Bunker Busters. In addition I have heard the US has been working to improve the suitcase Nuclear Bomb. So the question is where is this over night coming from? It has been around.

To continue my "cheerleading"...









To be fair, this isn't just a Republican theme:




WMDs and rogue nations have been the center of America's foreign policy. Even in the midst of the War on Terror, rogue states seeking WMDs remain a greater threat. I think both candidates have agreed on this, although Senator Kerry continues to disagree with the implementation of just about every one of the President's policies.

John Kerry has been consistent for 20 years regarding his opposition to nuclear proliferation. However, you are correct that it is a bit of a revelation in that he phrased his debate answer as he did, vs. citing terrorism. It seems likely that his response was a way to get the topic off of the 'war on terror' and onto something else, given his foreign policy acumen. And it is a critical situation - points for Kerry on this.

On the other hand, Bush/Cheney (Clinton/Kerry/Kennedy/etc.) have all stated that WMD's in the hands of a terrorists are a top-priority threat, as noted in Amlord's quotes.


The implications for all three of the above can be seen in this Kerry quote from the debate.

John Kerry in the debate:

He equates the UNITED STATES improving and acquiring weapons to "nuclear proliferation.' That is going to be easy to combat, in my opinion. UltimateJoe, I'm being dramatic to make a point here, no flippancy intended. OK, maybe a little.

Bush - WMD's in the hands of terrorists are a problem, and I'll spare no expense ensuring that our armed forces are equipped with every weapon in the arsenal to deal with this emerging threat.

Kerry - Nukes are bad. We have a lot of nerve having these weapons, since all we've ever done with our weapons is free half of the world from communism and nazi-ism. What would we liberate next? Nope, I'm banning this program. We will only liberate people using non-nuclear weapons if I'm president... Unless they dig their bunkers too deep, in which case, I'll ask the French and Germans to co-sponsor a UN resolution on bunker depth.

In all seriousness, Bush has been crystal-clear on the 'nexus' of WMD and terrorism being job #1, and he did answer that way in the debate.

I am flabberghasted. You don't understand the double standard of expecting other free countries not bear arms when your country does? Is that not a simple and powerful concept? Just because common American historical rhetoric has associated our ruthless murdering of thousands of people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with liberation does not mean that nuclear weapons are the best or most appropriate way to seek liberty. Do you believe the world is better of with or without Nuclear Weapons (regardless of who controls them)? I know that people are stupid but it's no excuse for the support of nuclear weapons. We don't need them. We never needed them. We must defend ourselves and the world must band together to eliminate nuclear weapons from EVERY arsenal until nuclear proliferation is completely controlled. We do not have the right to own WMD and claim that our uses for them are "good" when EVERYONE else's use for WMD's is "bad" Talk about mexed missiges.

This represents some of the issues with the plans that Kerry put forth in the debate (and puts forth elsewhere). I have no issue with being strongly supportive of non-proliferation, and the mixed messages makes a good soundbite. But does it make good policy? What is one of the primary reasons for the development of the bunker buster bombs? So that we could, if necessary, bomb an underground facility--exactly the type that someone might use to hide a nuclear weapon. So, if you don't have the bomb, exactly what do you have to force someone to comply with rnon-proliferation regulations? They know they can just hide the facility underground (which Iran is doing), or put the weapons cache there. This then eliminates airstrikes as a potential means of eliminating the problem...forcing us into a ground campaign. I'm not sure that's the position we would want to be in--which is why the research is being done on the bunker buster bombs.

I will add that, from what I've seen, the bombs don't look like they'd be very effective, but that's a different debate.

Hobbes, maybe you misunderstood here but they are talking about bunker-buster nuclear weapons not bunker-buster conventional weapons. Or maybe you didn't misunderstand in which case it seems to me that you are advocating we use our nuclear weapons on other countries/groups. So which is it?

Non-proliferation is a two way street and Kerry is exactly right. We cannot advocate global destruction of nuclear weapons and then work on new and improved nuclear weapons while building our stockpiles at home. To do that ignores the very reason why states seek and acquire nuclear technology - to deter America (and others) from attacking their country. There are certainly some that aquire nuclear weapons with the intent to use them, but that generally isn't the case when we are talking about some place like Iran or North Korea, it is an insurance policy and a deterrent plain and simple.

The unfortunate reality about the world today is that the United States has an obligation to aid in the "policing" of our planet. Another unfortunate reality is that the technology needed to construct nuclear weapons is available globally. With that in mind, we both have the need to protect ourselves as well as our allies.

Hence, we have a "do as we say/not as we do" attitude. There is no way to rid the world COMPLETELY of nuclear weapons. There is no way to rid the planet of chemical weapons, etc. If we decide to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons, other nations will have a stark advantage strategically. If we allow other nations to develop ICBM's, other large/industrialized nations will be at risk.
Our economic prowess helps to flex muscle globally. It's not necessarily the most moral decision... but absolutely the right way to approach this issue for now.

Well, John Kerry's position on this research isn't surprising given his resistance to weapons' technology in the past. I was not happy with President Bush's response to this accusation though since it's a distortion that anti-defense liberals in Congress have been making for quite some time - starting with our own Senator Diane Feinstein who's never met a weapons system she liked, but don't dare shut a military base in her district. The study that Kerry referenced as detailed by General Meyers before the Senate Armed Services Committee, is not a development program for a new nuke. Rather it is an investigation into the feasibility of using a nuclear weapon to destroy an underground hardened bunker containing WMD, primarily Bio or Chem weapons. Meyers told the Senate that the fear during the Iraq war was that if they used conventional bunker busters to blow up a cache of bio/chem weapons that the resulting bio/chem airborne fallout could cause a massive loss of civilian life over a wide area. One theory is that the heat generated in a nuclear blast might render the bio/chem material harmless and prevent the deadly fallout. Nobody knows for sure one way or the other, it's just a theory and that's why the DoD was asking for funds for researching it. It's only one of several ideas of dealing with massive stores of bio/chem/nuclear material.



I don't see nuclear proliferation as being separate from the War on Terror, and that's hardly "intellectually fraudulent" at all. Nuclear proliferation is a part of the war on terror, a big part. Websters defines the word "proliferation" as the following....



In the context of the war on terrorism it makes sense to attempt to limit the number of possible sources for a terrorist group to obtain a nuclear weapon. It makes a lot of sense and that's why it's something on which both Kerry and Bush agree. They may have some disagreements on how to best accomplish it as in the case of North Korea and the debate of bi-lateral vs. multi-lateral negotiations, but the fundamental policy is the same. So I don't really seeing it as being much of an issue in the upcoming election.

Ok, I'm going to take one last stab at this...



Is the War on Terror and the efforts to prevent Nuclear Proliferation the same thing? Sure... by that logic there's no difference between the Marshall Plan and the Korean War... I mean they were both about containment. Right...



What I find so interesting though is that they have never made Nuclear Weapons by themselves the threat; the context has always been the War on Terror, with such arms being an ancillary concern. In the political landscape every turn-of-phrase and sound bite offered up is carefully considered and planned; so how do we account then for the difference in language from every other discussion of security and the FP debate from last thursday?

I also think it is telling that people here have used the term Weapons of Mass Destruction (which I don't really like) or WMD. Note again that with the rigorous attention to detail neither candidates used this phrase (or it's abbreviation), again departing from earlier rhetoric.

Kerry was asked the question and responded "nuclear proliferation." I gave him points for this, especially mentioning the Russian materiel, etc., and that he "wrote a book about it." OK, good answer.

In this debate, there was opportunity for rebuttals. So Bush spent some 'rebuttal' time and in it he responds to the question as follows. In his response he reframes Kerry's answer giving the 'WMD in the hands of a terrorist.'



UJ, I think that you are reading too much into this one exchange to say that "Now all of a sudden it's Nuclear Proliferation." Kerry was making a point about nuclear proliferation, a subject on which he has campaigned for 20 years. Bush responded, citing this issue as pertains to the war on terror. That's it. No sharp change in rhetoric that I see.

If you demand an answer to the question posed:
I guess I would have to say "It's 30 days to go until the election, there is a foreign policy debate, Kerry is losing on national security issues, and he tries to bring up some new stuff for people to consider."

That's just good debate prep.l Maybe he thought he would trip Bush up with the talks on Korea. He did not. For all of his faults last Thursday, Bush was crystal clear in the Korea multi-party talks, and he was right and Kerry was wrong. That's my 2p, anyway.

Ok, I'll take another shot at addressing it, this time from the rhetoric standpoint which I see as more of a political question. I think Kerry answered the question in this fashion in order to sidestep the broader question of how he'd handle the overall war on terror. That's not an issue on which he's done well with the American people. So, I think he tried to break the broader question into a more specific area where he felt he had something demonstrable to cite as an indication that he's considered the problem.

Politically it was a pretty astute move on his part because it forced Bush to address a specific piece of the war on terrorism instead of the broader issue as a whole. Had Bush done that I have no doubt the Kerry people would have raised a red flag over his failure to address the specifics of a very important aspect of that war. He would have been accused of "broadbrushing things" without any specific plan, something Kerry has done this entire campaign.

So, I guess the answer to your questions, UJ is political maneuvering.

If I were an optimist, I'd think that the phrase 'nuclear proliferation' meant we no longer had to worry about Chem/Bio weapons.

As a pessimist, I believe it's W's way of pre-emptively defending missle defense systems.

Ballistic Missle Defense is a waste of (a whole honking lot of) money.
1) It was never designed to be 100% effective. It was designed to destroy enough of a Soviet first strike to allow us to launch a retaliatory strike.
2) It probably won't work as well as they hoped.
3) Any rogue state with a nuclear device would not risk such a rare device on an untested ballistic missle. More reliable (and cheaper) methods exist, such as airplanes, trucks, and CARGO CONTAINERS.
4) Any rogue state launching a nuclear tipped ballistic missle at us would immediately be reduced to smoking glass. It's relatively easy to determine where a ballistic missle came from. Extremists may be able to recruit suicide bombers, however, extremist leaders are rarely suicidal themselves.
5) If some evildoer really wanted to launch a nuclear missle at the US, he'd be much more likely to succeed, as well excape retaliatation, if he used a cruise missle, perhaps launched by a disguised ship from off our coast.

I also tend to believe that, without testing, as of yet undeveloped nuclear devices are not viable threats. Those countries developing nuclear devices should be strongly discouraged from doing so, with pressure (and support) from the international community. Those deteriorating soviet nukes are still a problem and should be bought up post-haste.

I don't lose any sleep over nukes, bioweapons, or chemical weapons, and I live next to and work in Washington, DC.

Most assuredly, our most urgent terrorist threat is conventional explosives, though they may be augmented, for terror effect, with radioactive materials.

I personally believe that the most important threat to America is continued fiscal irresponsibility on the part of both incumbent parties.

You might have some case for this claim had President Bush been the one to interject this subject into the debate. However, it was Kerry who brought up the subject. Bush was merely responding to it.

I think there is a difference between stopping Nuclear Proliferation and the War on Terrorism. Kerry was referring to global non-proliferation (the bigger picture). Bush was referring to, specifically, rogue states and terrorists with regards to non-proliferation (the small picture). We need to look at the bigger picture. If we get nuclear weapons under control, it is harder for them to fall into the hands of terrorists.

As to the use of nuclear weapons to destroy chemical and biological weapons, there are other non-nuclear devices capable of creating that much heat. There is absolutely no need for a nuclear bunk buster bomb. And, yes, it is the development of a new nuclear weapon.

One of the excuses that many "rogue" nations use as regards their nuclear weapons programs is that they feel they need to protect themselves from the possibility of attack from the US or Israel (as is the case with Iran). Non-proliferation only works if everyone jumps on board. Bush is trying to justify increasing our nuclear proliferation by stating that the enemy has it, so we have to defend ourselves. This doesn't work.