Should Kerry Talk About The ABM Treaty And Nuclear Bunker Busters?

[DrFunkenstein]

This is a biggie for me, but I wonder what the American public will think about Bush's Dr. Strangelove syndrom.

Bush Plans New Nuclear Weapons
'Bunker-buster' bombs set to end 10-year research ban

The Bush administration is pushing ahead with the development of a new generation of weapons, dubbed 'mini-nukes', that use nuclear warheads to penetrate underground bunkers.

Last week, it gave a quiet yet final go-ahead to a controversial research project into the bunker-buster. The move effectively ends a 10-year ban on research into 'low-yield' nuclear weapons. Critics fear it may lead other countries to push ahead with developing such weapons. It also comes at a highly sensitive time diplomatically, with the US lobbying countries such as Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear plans.

Critics also question the wisdom of developing such weapons and say America's willingness to deploy them will blur the distinction between nuclear war and conventional conflict. Bob Schaeffer, of the Anti-Nuclear Alliance, said: 'It is dangerous and provocative. It is like a drunk preaching temperance to everyone else at the bar, while ordering another round.'

'Why are they even talking about this now, unless something is planned? It makes no sense to us. America has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, but it did not stop 9/11,' said Schaeffer.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1130-04.htm

ABM Treaty Out, Doubts in

By deciding to abandon the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, President Bush has launched the world into a whole new uncertainty over the role of nuclear weapons.

At the height of the cold war, the ABM Treaty was an attempt to make sure these weapons were just defensive. It worked. But now as other nations try to build nuclear bombs and missiles to carry them, the United States can no longer rely on just a treaty to safeguard itself.

The treaty had to go now, because Mr. Bush wants to push ahead with the testing of a missile defense system that would violate the treaty. He tried to win support for scrapping the Soviet-era treaty from Russian President Vladimir Putin, but failed. The Kremlin, from Soviet times to the present, has held the ABM Treaty in a bear hug, as a guarantee of strategic equity with the United States.

Perhaps more worrisome, China may react by trying to build up its small stock of missiles and warheads to maintain a credible deterrent against the US. Convincing Beijing it has nothing to fear will be a major task for Bush's diplomatic team.

Is missile defense a good investment? The president clearly has no doubts. He argues that the Sept. 11 attacks underscore a need to counter even more powerful weaponry - i.e., missiles - that may become available to terrorists. And he's right that an Al Qaeda terrorist who had such capability would try to use it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1214/p10s1-comv.html

Kerry's anti-nuclear record is exemplary - to people with brains, at least - and this might be a good move to show the dangers that Bush's simplistic worldview represent. Any thoughts about Kerry and/or this political tactic?



Bonus: Here's a link to watch Lyndon Johnson's "nuclear daisy" attack ad against Goldwater.

http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/timeline/years/1964b.html