MyDD :: Edwards: No "new nuclear weapons"

Edwards: No "new nuclear weapons"

by TarHeel, Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:29:56 PM EST

One of the things I missed at the appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations was a question about nuclear weapons.

Apparently none of the other candidates have been asked about it, but Edwards essentially supports becoming "nuclear free".

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid =7&pid=200721

Cora Weiss: -- in keeping with your expression used today that there should be no excuse to abandon international law, and in keeping with the international court's unanimous opinion that all countries should eliminate their nuclear weapons, and in keeping with Mr. Kissinger, Sam Nunn and Schultz' op-ed in The Wall Street Journal calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, when you are president, what will you do about nuclear weapons given that Mr. Bush has just announced the complex 2030 plan to redesign and develop a new generation of nuclear weapons?

John Edwards: 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.

Tags: john Edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Edwards: No "new nuclear weapons" (none / 0)

Yeah, that was good.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:06:20 PM EST

But Obama said it first! (3.00 / 1)

April 23, 2007 foreign policy speech:

There are still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium - some of it poorly secured - at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries around the world. In the former Soviet Union, there are still about 15,000 to 16,000 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium capable of making another 40,000 weapons scattered across 11 time zones. And people have already been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell them on the black market.

We can do something about this. As President, I will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years - the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a bomb.

While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, we should also negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.

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.

by rashomon on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:21:07 PM EST

Re: But Obama said it first! (none / 0)

Not the same. Edwards agreed that the world shouldn't have any nuclear weapons. Thus, no nuclear deterrent for anyone.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For sure (none / 0)

Extremely good point!

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Obama said it first! (3.00 / 0)

No, he said that he supports the principle that the world shouldn't have any nuclear weapons, which (duh) everyone on the left agrees with. But the point is how we go from the messy world we live in to that principle, and unless you think your candidate is willing to declare that the US should not maintain a nuclear deterrent, it's not going to be any different than anyone else.

It's okay for something to just be a good idea that lots of candidates support. Securing loose nuclear material, de-alerting our warheads, maintaining the moratorium on testing, and putting diplomatic and political muscle behind things like the CTBT are perfect examples of things that every Democratic candidate would support and a big part of why a Democratic foreign policy is important.

by Baldrick on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:03:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Obama said it first! (none / 0)

I doubt many "serious" politicians would agree with what he did. It doesn't fit the CW.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:05:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Obama said it first! (3.00 / 0)

Clinton and Yeltsin signed an agreement in September of 1998 which explicitly affirmed the commitment of both nations to the principle of eventual nuclear disarmament. This was seriously mainstream stuff during the Clinton administration.

Also, Bill Richardson said in a speech on March 27:

The Non-Proliferation Treaty commits non-nuclear states to forego nuclear weapons, and it also commits the nuclear weapons states to the goal of nuclear disarmament. To get others to take the NPT seriously, we need to take it seriously ourselves. We should re-affirm our commitment to the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament, and we should invite the Russians to join us in a moratorium on all new nuclear weapons. And we should negotiate further staged reductions in our arsenals, beyond what has already been agreed, over the next decade.

I looked for about 2 minutes to find that, and while I didn't turn up anything from the others, I would be really surprised if any Democratic candidate disagreed with the principle of eventual disarmament. I mean, it's right there in the NPT, a legally binding treaty which is the foundation of any (sane) approach to dealing with proliferation, and the cornerstone of a Democratic campaign on the issue.

by Baldrick on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:31:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If no nukes is the cornerstone (3.00 / 1)

of democratic policy, feel free to dig up something from Obama and Clinton that actually says that. The quote from Obama above doesnt say that - in fact it explictly mentions the necessity of having a strong nuclear deterrent.

by okamichan13 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If no nukes is the cornerstone (3.00 / 0)

From NH Peace Action, a report on a meeting with Obama:

"Monday, April 2, 2007. Peterborough Diner. Initial question: Will you come out against a new generation of nuclear weapons, such as the Complex 2030 program and the Reliable Replacement Warhead?
"Obama: As president, I would want to look at general U.S. nuclear policies to see what needs to be done. If we want the rest of the world to disarm, countries like India and Pakistan, we need to put something on the table, bring something to the table. (He said an additional sentence about leading by example in disarmament - that was the jist of the comment.)"

The commenter goes on to say that Obama was not emphatic in his refusal to support a new weapons plan, which I'm sure one of y'all will jump on, but which is entirely consistent with my point: all Democratic candidates will support the principle of moving toward disarmament but all of them will ALSO be unwilling to declare that the US should give up its nuclear deterrent now.

Also, as anyone can tell from studying his record, Obama has made nuclear proliferation one of his signature issues. For everyone who complains about "no substance" this is one place where that complaint could not possibly be leveled. He has put serious work into highlighting the importance of nuclear issues and working to move toward a world less in the thrall of nuclear weapons, which really ought to be the thing we pay attention to. As Gary Hart (former senator and presidential candidate, is chairman of Council for a Livable World) says:

"In his foreign policy speech in Chicago on Monday, Senator Barack Obama clearly outlined his strategy for dealing with nuclear terrorism, which included a bold commitment to completely secure vulnerable nuclear material in the former Soviet Union within four years and a verifiable global ban on new fissile material.

Those of us committed to arms control and disarmament must applaud Senator Obama for highlighting the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction."

I couldn't find anything from Hillary. But given that (as I said) this was clearly the rhetoric and posture of her husband's administration as well as the other major candidates, I would be very surprised if she answered this question differently.

by Baldrick on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:30:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Obama said it first! (none / 0)

Alright. But we've said plenty of bullshit in treaties that we've never meant.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:03:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Obama said it first! (none / 0)

That's my point. NONE of the candidates actually support disarmament. They all pay lip-service to it while supporting a number of very important measures like Nunn-Lugar, maintaining the moratorium, etc.

It's not such a bad thing that they won't commit to something more serious, though as someone who has been advocating for disarmament since I was 15 years old I would whole-heartedly support it. They will all put us back in the right direction at least.

The point is that I would be shocked if any of them differed in any substantial way on this issue.

by Baldrick on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:34:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That 2nd part you bolded (3.00 / 1)

isnt quite as bold as it would seem: "We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads."

He's saying no new nukes, but we'll keep our deterrent, thank you. Its exactly this kind of thinking that undermines our efforts on non-proliferation.

He's not seeing lets get rid of them all together.

by okamichan13 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:03:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That 2nd part you bolded (none / 0)

See above.

And while the lack of support for real disarmament is PART of what undermines our credibility on non-prolif, FAR FAR more important is the efforts of Bush and the Republicans to actively destroy the NPT.

Simply ending our commitment to NMD, bunker-busters, new nuclear testing, new nuclear development, and so on would go a tremendous way to bolstering the NPT regime. And if we had a president actually push for the CTBT it would do even more. And if we could actually get the CTBT ratified...the hills would be singing, I can tell you that.

by Baldrick on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:36:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hopefully this (3.00 / 1)

will come up at the next debate and it can be answered.. but more likely they'll just ask edwards about his house and haircuts

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Obama said it first! (3.00 / 1)

He opposes "rushing" to produce a new generation of warheads, but doesn't reject producing them outright.

This is my beef with Obama. He makes things so convoluted that you can't really "get" what he says, because so many different people "get" different things. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right, but Obama doesn't make it clear.

Edwards says "No new nuclear weapons." Obama says 'let's not rush to it.'

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Obama said it first! (3.00 / 0)

From the thing you're responding to:

"we should also negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material"

As for the complaint that Obama makes things convoluted, the exact opposite complaint could be leveraged against Edwards. He commits to the general principle, and says there are lots of intermediary steps, but fails to outline what those are while Obama explicitly identifies several concrete measures he would take.

Or, even better, you could decide that a couple random quotes on the issue are not enough to judge the stance of either, and wait until someone actually says something you disagree with before making it a referendum on their political approach.

I would love to have either of them (or any of the Democrats) running the show on nuclear issues, and I haven't seen anything from any of them to give me reason to doubt that.

by Baldrick on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: No "new nuclear weapons" (none / 0)

There is nothing "abstract" about WMDs. There really is a REAL WORLD out there, folks! Consider:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/ 31/russia.tensions/index.html

It won't seem like a political talking point when the world is suddenly "brighter looking" than you ever saw it before!

by blues on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:52:30 PM EST

Re: Edwards: No "new nuclear weapons" (1.00 / 1)

You'll excuse me if these remarks come across as a little strained. That's because right now I'm wondering how many times I can call you a moron in a single comment without sounding trollish. With that said, you're a moron. Here's why:

There are no two ways about it: you are an idiot. Nobody but an idiot would post that link to support your point. It does not support your point.

The fact that Putin is testing some new missiles now is not a clear and present danger to America. Russia does not want to nuke anyone. Nukes are bad for the economy. Russia is flexing its muscles because it feels threatened.

"Why? I see no reason for this, though I cannot tie my shoelaces" I hear you cry. With regard to the shoelace issue, keep trying. I'm sure you'll work it out some day.

As far as the second one goes, it's because America withdrew from the ballistic missiles treaty five years ago (the one designed to stop us using weaponised uranium to remove ourselves from the planet and sterilise the remains) and is now sticking a missile defence shield up in eastern Europe, which isn't going to stop attacks on American soil.

Why? Because terrorists don't possess any missile with a longer range than ex-Russian army stuff they picked up twenty years ago in Afghanistan, Iran doesn't have a missile with a range anywhere near a thousand miles and North Korea, even if it used a missile for a nuke (which is far from certain), wouldn't plan a flight path over the entirety of Eurasia.

Hence this missile shield must have an ulterior motive. Could it be to stop Russian missiles, therefore allowing them to be nuked without their retaliation strikes working? Well, no. Russia has enough nukes. Some would get through. But if you have a reason to make that more difficult, that suggests a lack of trust. If a superpower does not trust you, how do you respond? You make yourself stronger. How? In this case, better missiles.

And really, do we want reduced trust between two powers who between them could destroy most of the earth's crust? I submit that you do not want that. You do not want trembling figures hovering over a button marked 'Press Here to End Your Species'.

Honestly, the only good thing about this plan is that they're no longer talking about that ridiculous 'Son of Star Wars' bottomless black hole for Defence Appropriations.

Again, I apologise if I've insulted your intelligence by what I've written above. But in my defence, I was responding to something really stupid...

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: No "new nuclear weapons" (none / 0)

This is, hands down, the most bizarre post I've ever seen on MyDD. What in the world are you even talking about?

I troll-rated it because you keep insulting someone, though for the life of me I have a hard time identifying who you think it is you're talking to.

by Baldrick on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 04:06:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: No "new nuclear weapons" (none / 0)

Well, maybe I should have made my point so crystal clear that no one could misunderstand it. My main point is that this thread seemed to me to be understating the dire nature of what is really going on with this business of surrounding Russia with missiles.

Here's one thing: suppose Russia decided to deploy "anti-missiles" in Cuba to protect it's Oil partners in Venezuela from an attack by, say, Columbia? Do you think that might at least elicit a few gripes from Condi? Remember, satellite reconnaissance cannot differentiate anti-missile missiles from strategic attack missiles.

If we can put 10 missiles on the Russian border, then next year we will put 5,000 missiles there, obviously. With 5,000 anti-missiles, the US would be strongly tempted to launch a first strike, and then try to knock down the few remaining Russian missiles. This would strongly encourage Russia to execute its own first strike, of course.

So, the most likely scenario will be that Bush will proceed to install missiles at the Russian border, and at some point, Russia will nuke those missile sites. I think that that outcome could bear consequences that are considerably more dire than the diplomatic consequences that some of the up-thread posters have been contemplating.

by blues on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 06:58:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: No "new nuclear weapons" (none / 0)

Sorry, I would appear to have got completely the wrong end of the stick. I thought you were suggesting that this Russia business was why nuclear missiles were needed. I'm afraid I made a complete idiot out of myself there, but that's what I get for posting when I can hardly keep my eyelids open.

Apologies.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:59:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.