David Krieger / Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – 2004-07-26 10:56:19

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/nuclear-dangers/report-card.htm

US Presidential Candidates’ Nuclear Report Card

The US government has the paramount responsibility to assure a more secure and far safer environment for its citizens. In continuing its long tradition of demonstrating world leadership, the US government can protect Americans and their families, as well as people throughout the world, by significantly reducing and eliminating the threats posed by nuclear weapons.

As a US citizen, you can vo ice your opinions on these important issues to Presidential candidates and members of congress. Before you go to the ballot this year, find out where your Presidential candidate stands on nuclear policies that will protect the US and its citizens, as well as ensure a far safer and more secure world.

1. Stop all efforts to create dangerous new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

George W. Bush
President George W. Bush is seeking to increase efforts to create new nuclear weapons. In President Bush’s 2005 defense budget, there are two requests concerning nuclear weapons. The first would allocate $9 million to Advanced Concept Initiative, including funding for “mini-nukes.” The second is a $27.6 million request to conduct research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or “bunker buster” bomb. (1)

John Kerry
Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry stated in a speech on June 1, 2004 , “As president, I will stop this administration’s program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs. This is a weapon we don’t need. And it undermines our credibility in persuading other nations. What kind of message does it send when we’re asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons but developing new ones ourselves?” (2)

Ralph Nader
On being asked whether he opposes the development and funding of new nuclear weapons Nader stated, “I would halt all research into the design of new nuclear weapons, including improving existing types and creating new types. The US has all the nuclear weapons that it ever needs. Further research is likely to destabilize our position by making other countries feel threatened, and could damage our security directly when our ideas leak out and are copied. There are no benefits except to contractors at our national labs and military contractors in general. It is time to put the interests of the people of this country and the world above the profits of General Dynamics and Lockheed-Martin.” (3)

2. Maintain the current moratorium on nuclear testing and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

George W. Bush
According to the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the Bush administration said that it will continue to uphold the current moratorium on full-scale nuclear testing but it opposes the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The NPR did not make a formal recommendation to resume nuclear testing, however it calls on the Department of Energy to accelerate the time it would take to prepare a full scale test, which is currently two years. The 2005 Budget requests $30 million for Enhanced Test Readiness to reduce the time needed to prepare for and conduct a full-scale, underground nuclear test to 18 months. (4)

John Kerry
When asked, ” Do you support the resumption of explosive nuclear weapons testing?,” Kerry answered “No.” He stated, ” I have been an outspoken proponent of arms control and non-proliferation measures in the Senate. I fought against withdrawal from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which I viewed as a step backwards in our efforts to promote an international non-proliferation regime.” (5)

Ralph Nader
When asked, “What are your views on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?” Nader answered, “Of course I’m for it.” Nader stated, “Arms control is extremely important.” He also said, “I would make the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty one of my top legislative priorities.” (6)

3. Cancel plans to build new nuclear weapons production plants , and close and clean up the toxic contamination at existing plants.

George W. Bush
The Bush administration proposes increased spending to improve the capabilities of existing nuclear weapons production facilities and the construction of entirely new facilities such as the Modern Pit Facility (MPF), which would be dedicated to the production of plutonium pits. The 2005 budget includes $29.8 million requested for the MPF, 176% more than the $10.8 million approved in the FY 2004 budget. The MPF will produce at least 125 new plutonium pits each year, with the capacity to build as many as 500 per year. Construction of the MPF is estimated to cost between $2 billion and $4 billion and is anticipated to be completed by 2020.

The 2005 budget request also includes $79.8 million in funds to prepare facilities for resumed tritium production for nuclear weapons. Tritium is an essential element for increasing the power of US nuclear weapons, and has not been produced for weapons purposes since 1988.

Although $38 million was allocated in the 2004 budget to dismantle retired warheads, the 2005 budget no longer separately identifies any spending for “Weapons Dismantlement and Disposal.” Instead, the National Nuclear Security Administration has requested $65 million for the “Retired Warheads Stockpile Systems,” a new category for storage and maintenance of retired stockpile warheads, safety studies for newly retired warheads; and preservation of components from dismantled warheads of types that remain in the stockpiles. It is unclear whether any retired warheads will be dismantled in 2005. (7 )

John Kerry
In his speech on June 1, 2004 , Kerry stated, “We need to prevent new nuclear materials from being created.” Kerry said he will lead an international coalition for a global ban on production of material for new nuclear weapons. (8)

Ralph Nader
In an interview on 7 September 2000 , Nader stated, “I would cancel the Department of Energy’s plans to produce tritium, and push for legislation to ban the production of tritium in the United States . Current tritium plans assume no progress on arms control. The U.S. has a sizable inventory of tritium, and tritium can be recovered from scrapped nuclear warheads.” Nader also stated, “I would push for a global ban on the production of weapons-usable fissile materials.” (9)

4. Establish and enforce a legally binding US commitment to No Use of nuclear weapons against any nation or group that does not have nuclear weapons.

George W. Bush
According to the 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the Bush administration embraces the option of using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. The NPR calls for development of contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq , Iran , North Korea , Syria , Libya , Russia and China . As at least four of these countries are non-nuclear weapons states, the US threat to use nuclear weapons against them violates the negative security assurances that it gave to the non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the time of its Review and Extension Conference in 1995. (10)

John Kerry
Currently unavailable.

Ralph Nader
In an interview on 7 September 2000 , Nader stated, “The only practical use of nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to nuclear threats from other countries. They should not be used for any other purpose whatsoever.” (11)

5. Establish and enforce a legally binding US commitment to No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nations possessing nuclear weapons.

George W. Bush
In September 2002, the Bush administration released a document entitled, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America ,” which solidifies preemptive war as official US policy. The document states, “The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed.And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.” This statement underlines the Bush administration’s intention and willingness to engage in preemptive war, including the possibility of a nuclear first strike. (12)

John Kerry
Currently unavailable

Ralph Nader
In an interview on 7 September 2000 , Nader stated he will “adopt a no-first use policy, and urge other nuclear powers to do the same.” (13)

6. Cancel funding for and plans to deploy offensive missile “defense” systems which could ignite a dangerous arms race and offer no security against terrorist weapons of mass destruction.

George W. Bush
In 2001, President Bush announced that the US would deploy a missile defense system. In order to do so, the US withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed with the Former Soviet Union. The missile defense plans include the development of a layered missile defense with initial ground-based, mid-course defense capabilities. By September 2004, at least twenty anti-ballistic missile interceptors will be deployed at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air force Base in California.

Since President Bush has taken office, federal budget funding for missile defenses has risen sharply. For 2004, he requested $9.1 billion and Congress approved the request, which was 23% more than the previous year’s budget. For 2005, President Bush has requested a budget of more than $10 billion. (14)

The Bush administration is now actively implementing a system that even Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has publicly admitted is not fully developed. When questioned at a December 17, 2002 press conference about the Administration’s decision to deploy a missile defense system while the test program is still underway, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recommended starting deployment now and working on improvements later. He stated, “I like the feeling, the idea, of beginning, and putting something in the ground, or in the air or at sea and getting comfortable with it, and using it, and testing it and learning from that. A lot of things just don’t arrive fully developed, full-blown – and there it is . . . I think the way to think about the missile defense program is that it will be an evolutionary program, it will evolve over a period of time.” (15)

John Kerry
In answer to a question posed by Peace Action, “Do you support the development of a national missile defense?” Kerry asserted his support for “an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers.” (16) In a floor statement following Bush’s 2001 speech on missile defense and the ABM Treaty, Kerry called missile defense a “response of last resort,” that is “only one part of a comprehensive national security strategy.” He stressed that the ABM Treaty could be amended, “but to abandon it all-together is to welcome an arms race that will make us more vulnerable, not less.” (17)

Ralph Nader
In an interview on 7 September 2000 , Nader stated , “[As President] I would abandon research into the useless and wasteful National Missile Defense program, and reconfirm the United States ‘ support for the ABM treaty.” (18)

7. In order to significantly decrease the threat of accidental launch, together with Russia , take nuclear weapons off high-alert status and do away with the strategy of launch-on-warning.

George W. Bush
Under the Bush administration, the US continues to keep nuclear weapons on high-alert status with the launch-on-warning strategy. The US currently maintains about 2200 nuclear weapons on high-alert status, as does Russia . US doctrine maintains that this it is required to keep weapons on high-alert in order to give political credibility to US threats of massive retaliation.

John Kerry
Currently Unavailable

Ralph Nader
In an interview on 7 September 2000 , Nader stated that as President he would , “Take all nuclear missiles off ‘hair-trigger,’ high-alert status, and urge the Russian President to do the same. The greatest danger of a global nuclear disaster is an accidental launch. De-alerting will not undermine the United States ‘ ability to deter a nuclear strike. There are over 3,000 nuclear warheads on American submarines. Enough are at sea and on alert at any time to assure sufficient retaliation capacity even after a massive first strike.” He also stated, ” Taking nuclear weapons off high-alert status is the single most important step we could take towards preventing a nuclear disaster.” (19)

8. Together with Russia , implement permanent and verifiable dismantlement of nuclear weapons taken off deployed status through the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).

George W. Bush
In May 2002, President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). In the treaty, the two governments agreed to reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to Bush’s preferred numbers, as set forth in the 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review, of between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012. The treaty made no provisions for interim reductions, and thus, despite SORT, it remains possible for either or both sides to actually increase the size of their arsenal between the inception of the treaty and 2012, so long as the reductions to the agreed numbers are accomplished by 2012. The treaty does not provide verification measures to assure that the reductions are made. The treaty is also set to terminate, unless extended, in 2012.

Furthermore, the treaty has no provisions for the nuclear warheads removed from active deployment. The US has announced its intentions to put many or most of these warheads into storage and on “reserve” status, where they will remain available to be reintroduced to active deployment should this decision be taken in the future. Russia is likely to follow the US approach, and the treaty may exacerbate a new threat of theft and transfer of nuclear weapons and materials from Russia to other nations or terrorist groups. (20) No further action has been taken by the US or Russia to ensure the permanent and verifiable dismantlement of nuclear weapons under SORT.

John Kerry
In his speech on June 1, 2004 , Kerry stated that he will work with the Russians to “blend down” and dispose of stocks of existing nuclear materials. (21) He stated that SORT “runs the risk of increasing the danger of nuclear theft by stockpiling thousands of warheads . if we are to make America safer, and we must, it will take more than cosmetic treaties that leave Russia ‘s nuclear arsenal in place.” On his campaign website, Kerry states he will make securing weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union a priority in relations between the US and Russia and work with our allies to establish global standards for safekeeping of nuclear materials. (22)

Ralph Nader
In an interview on 7 September 2000 , Nader stated, “I would push for immediate ratification of START II, and immediately begin negotiations of a START III agreement that will bring missile levels below 1,000. Once we have achieved this level of disarmament we would be in a position to begin talks with all nuclear nations for the negotiation of deeper cuts and the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons.” Nader said he would strongly urge Russia to follow suit. (23)

9. Demonstrate to other countries US commitment to reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons by removing all US nuclear weapons from foreign soil.

George W. Bush
Under the Bush administration, the US has continued a policy of maintaining some 150 nuclear weapons in NATO states, including: Belgium , Germany , Italy , the Netherlands , Turkey and the UK . Until recently, nuclear weapons were also stored in Greece.

John Kerry
Currently unavailable.

Ralph Nader
In an interview on 7 September 2000 , Nader stated , “Prohibit the deployment of US nuclear weapons outside the United States .” (24)

10. To prevent future proliferation or theft, create and maintain a global inventory of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials and place these weapons and materials under strict international safeguards.

George W. Bush
In a speech at the National Defense University on February 11, 2004 , President George W. Bush outlined “Seven Initiatives to Combat Nuclear Proliferation.” (25) Commendably, President Bush called upon all countries “to strengthen the laws and international controls that govern proliferation,” including criminalizing proliferation. His proposed initiatives are based on double standards that would allow some states to continue to “legally” possess nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials outside of international inspections and safeguards, while imposing more rigorous standards on other states. (26)

John Kerry
In his speech on June 1, 2004, Kerry stated, “When I am president, America will lead the world in a mission to lock up and safeguard nuclear weapons material so terrorists can never acquire it.” (27)

Ralph Nader
Although Nader is an advocate of nuclear disarmament, he has not specified developing a global inventory of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials as a means to preventing nuclear proliferation and theft. However, with respect to US nuclear waste, Nader states that as President he will “assure that stored nuclear waste is continuously monitored, with public access to monitoring data.” (28)

11. Initiate international negotiations to fulfill existing treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for the phased and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons.

George W. Bush
Despite US obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue good faith negotiations that would lead to complete nuclear disarmament, President Bush is embarking on efforts that would undermine the NPT. These efforts include the development of new nuclear weapons such as “bunker-busters” and “mini nukes.” In addition, under the Bush administration, the US has not pursued and has actively opposed nearly all of the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

John Kerry
In his speech on June 1, 2004 , Kerry called for strengthening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and establishing international standards for safeguarding nuclear materials. (29) However, Kerry has made no commitment to pursuing good faith negotiations leading to complete nuclear disarmament as obligated under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Ralph Nader
Nader states, “as the first country to use nuclear weapons, and the perennial leader in new technologies for these horrifying weapons of mass destruction, the United States has a moral obligation to take the lead in working for their elimination. The 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty gives us a legal obligation to work for elimination, as well.” (30) In an interview on 7 September 2000 , Nader stated that as President he will “b egin talks with all nuclear nations to develop a framework and a final date for the abolition of nuclear weapons.” (31)

12. Redirect funding from nuclear weapons programs to dismantling nuclear weapons, safeguarding nuclear materials, cleaning up the toxic legacy of the Nuclear Age and meeting more pressing social needs such as education, health care and social services.

George W. Bush
With an increasing budget for weapons, both nuclear and conventional, the Bush administration has not proposed or recommended redirecting funding from nuclear weapons programs to cleaning up the toxic legacy of the Nuclear Age or meeting pressing social needs. Under the Bush administration, US defense spending has risen 18 percent since 2001 and now constitutes 47 percent of global military expenditures. (32)

John Kerry
When asked, ” Do you favor reductions in the Pentagon budget in order to fund investments in human needs?” Kerry replied, “While I believe that we need to dedicate more resources to meeting essential human needs, I do not believe these funding increases should come at the expense of meeting our critical defense needs.” (33)

Ralph Nader
Although Nader has not recommended redirecting funds from nuclear weapons programs, Nader has recommended redirecting “federal funding from nuclear energy research to renewable energy technology.” (34)

NAPF Programs Nuclear Dangers US Presidential Candidate Report Card
© Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 1998 – 2004 |