Ron Paul has stated that he is against military activity in almost every circumstance when war isn’t declared. He states that because the US went back and offered deals to the North Koreans after they exploded a nuclear weapon, while invading Iraq, a country that did not have an atomic bomb, the US is offering an “tremendous incentive” to non-nuclear states to develop nuclear weapons. He has no other statement on the future status of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
Mike Huckabee for President: ...There is no way Iran will acquire nuclear weapons on my watch. But before I look parents in the eye to explain why I had to put their son’s or daughter’s life at risk in military action against Iran, I want to know that I have done everything possible to avoid that conflict...
On June 5 at the CNN GOP debate in New Hampshire, Gov. Huckabee stated that he would consider a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran to stop their development of nuclear weapons.
Gov. Huckabee has made no statement on the role of the military or the funding of the nuclear weapon stockpile since running for office.
“The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system. America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as "mutual assured destruction" in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes. Nor can it ignore the possibility of nuclear blackmail. Rogue regimes that know they can threaten America, our allies, and our interests with ballistic missiles will behave more aggressively, including by increasing their support for terrorists. On the other hand, the knowledge that America and our allies could intercept and destroy incoming missiles would not only make blackmail less likely but also decrease the appeal of ballistic missile programs and so help to slow their development and proliferation. It is well within our capability to field a layered missile defense capable of shielding us from the arsenals of the world's most dangerous states.” (Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007)
No details on McCain’s nuclear weapons policy exist on his web site. However, his voting record shows McCain voted against ratifying the comprehensive test ban treaty in October 1999. According to the November/December 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine “"The nuclear nonproliferation regime is broken for one clear reason: the mistaken assumption behind the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that nuclear technology can spread without nuclear weapons eventually following."
According to media reports (http://www.prioritiesnh.org/blog/?p=120) Gov. Romney will not reduce the US nuclear weapons stockpile due to the potential threat of Iran. On April 26, 2007 in New York (http://www.cfr.org/publication/13258/) he outlined a new international initiative that would make nuclear trafficking a crime against humanity, on par with genocide and war crimes. “Countries that want to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes should convene to reaffirm their commitment to non-proliferation” and the US should promote the development of an international uranium fuel bank.
Continue reading "Mitt Romney on nuclear weapons" »
Citizens for Global Solutions: I was Energy Secretary under President Clinton. My department was responsible for the design, manufacture, and maintenance of our stockpile of nuclear weapons. These weapons are not abstractions to me: to see one of them is to be astounded that millions of deaths can be compressed into such a tiny package. To know intimately our nuclear arsenal is to know intimately how our species could destroy itself. Under my administration, we will lead the world toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals, not their augmentation.
Continue reading "Bill Richardson on nuclear weapons" »
Kucinich for President: The Kucinich administration will push Congress to ratifiy the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, re-ratify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and ratify the biological and chemical weapons convention.
Following statements by Mike Gravel at public events:
Gavel believes in cutting the US nuclear arsenal from 11,000 warheads to a couple of hundred (November 2006)
Gravel has stated that he thinks programs such as the reliable replacement warhead program is expanding US nuclear capability (August 2007) and that the US is the greatest violator of the non-proliferation treaty (April 2007).
Gravel has also publicly stated that threatening countries with nuclear weapons is the basis of an immoral foreign policy (April 2007).
He is in favor of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Citizens for Global Solutions: America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads. And we should take advantage of recent technological advances to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons – it’s to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists. That’s why I’ve worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. And that’s why I’ll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials during my first term in office.
Continue reading "Barack Obama on nuclear weapons" »
Council for a Livable World: According to questions asked to Dodd by the Council for a Livable World, Dodd supports attempts towards moving to a nuclear free world, and the U.S. in particular in leading an effort to reducing nuclear stockpiles (7 August 2007). Dodd also opposes the reliable replacement Warhead program, and considers ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty a priority for his administration. He also supports a multilateral international ban on placing weapons in space.
Council for a Livable World: A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for moving toward a "world free of nuclear weapons" and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. Do you support or oppose their proposal?
JOHN EDWARDS - I support this proposal. We should aspire to a nuclear-free world. Working with the international community to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles will be one of my top priorities as president. The very existence of nuclear weapons and the possibility that new states might acquire them presents one of the greatest threats to international peace and stability. States like Iran and North Korea can sell dangerous technologies to terrorists intent on doing us harm. Nearly two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, hundreds of tons of nuclear materials - enough material to produce over 60,000 Hiroshima-size bombs - and 20,000 nuclear warheads remain at risk in Russia. A recent study concluded that 60% of the country's nuclear materials have not been secured. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has failed to address this challenge in any serious, sustained way - a policy failure that must be reversed.
Continue reading "John Edwards on nuclear weapons" »
Citizens for Global Solutions: When I am President, the United States will once again be a leader in reducing the roles and risks of nuclear weapons, and preventing them from falling into the wrong hands. I support the goal of every president from Truman to Clinton of ending nuclear weapons, and I support the effort that Sam Nunn, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz are leading to restore American leadership in this area.
Continue reading "Hillary Clinton on nuclear weapons" »
When in the Senate Fred Thompson openly oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that would put restrictions on testing of nuclear weapons.
According to white papers at Fred08 Fred Thompson is committed to:
A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests.
A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles.
This defense would consist of a layered, multi-tiered missile defense architecture that includes land-, sea-, and space-based components. A Thompson administration would support the development and testing of advanced missile defense technologies to address the complexity of foreign ballistic missile inventories and promote international collaboration in all missile defense efforts, including cooperation in joint development and production with friends and allies.
Thompson would ensure the U.S. maintains a safe, effective, and credible strategic nuclear deterrent by maintaining complementary land-, sea-, and air-based weapons delivery platforms to ensure the survivability of our nuclear deterrent. He would modernize our existing nuclear weapons capabilities, as appropriate, to deal with 21st Century threats and challenges. His administration would try to maintain the lowest level of nuclear capabilities compatible with our national security needs and our international commitments. And revitalize the nuclear weapons complex so that it is responsive and adaptable to unanticipated threats.
Council for a Livable World: On whether the US should push for a nuclear-weapon-free world, as proposed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry.
This policy defines a new center in American politics, where realist conservative Republicans and tough minded Democrats find common ground. It reminds us that America must listen to the concerns of other countries regarding nuclear weapons if we expect their cooperation in preventing proliferation. Some parts of the op-ed may prove difficult in practice - I look forward to the authors' follow up conference this fall to hear them talk about how they would
implement their ideas and I've invited all four to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Continue reading "Joe Biden on nuclear weapons" »
The U.S. currently maintains its arsenal of about 10,000 nuclear weapons through the Stockpile Stewardship program, Given the concerns about nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of nuclearwepaons in other countries, is there an immediately need to change the .S. nuclear arsenal? Should the reliable replacement Warhead, or another smaller, "tactical" nuclear weapon be developed? Under what circumstances would you support the resumption of nuclear testing? Do you support the reduction in size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?
Where do the candidates stand on nuclear weapons?
|
|
