Abstract
Presidential candidates need to address a wide range of national security questions this election season.
I had hoped that the series of pre-pre-presidential-election debates would be the start of an historic era of political transparency, but I found the silliness and pomp more amusing than informative. The format of the debates–and their frequency–promised nuanced discussions, but instead the debates served as a series of infomercials to support record-breaking fund-raising.
The candidates are focused on the national security question du jour: a strategy for withdrawal from Iraq. Distancing themselves from an unpopular president is a logistic requirement. But with few exceptions, they have provided nothing more than trite sound bites on other national security issues.
To get presidential candidates to begin addressing national security issues more substantively, my colleagues at the Federation of American Scientists and I developed a short list of questions that we feel every candidate should be required to answer before the primaries (and certainly before November 2008). We hope that the campaigns, debate moderators, and the press will address the candidates' stances on these vital issues. Here's what we think the general public needs to know:
® The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would ban all nuclear explosions for military or civilian purposes. The United States signed the treaty in 1996, but the Senate rejected ratification in 1999. Would you make it a priority of your administration to ratify the treaty?
® The United States currently has nuclear-armed missiles deployed on high alert much as it did during the Cold War. Will you make it a priority of your administration to work with foreign leaders to take all nuclear weapons off alert?
® The Bush administration has been accused of undermining the integrity of government scientific findings to suit political agendas. Whether you believe this to be the case or not, what will you do to ensure that political appointees do not manipulate scientific findings or their dissemination for political purposes?
® There is now ample evidence of billions of dollars in wasteful spending and fraud at the Defense Department, often through unscrupulous or sloppy contractor practices. What specifically will you do to control such waste?
® Congress annually waives the legal requirement that the Defense Department balance its books and provide an accounting of defense spending. This is the only federal agency not required to do so. Will you make it a priority to end the practice of waiving this obligation and increase transparency of defense spending?
® The United States has reduced its nuclear weapons arsenal since the Cold War but still plans to retain thousands of these weapons indefinitely and is not pursuing the total elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. Are you committed to total nuclear disarmament, and what goals will your administration set for engaging the other nuclear weapon states to reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons?
® The Bush administration has proposed resuming industrial-scale production of new nuclear weapons under the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Program. Will you continue this program?
® The United States is ill-prepared for any large public health emergency. What specifically would your administration do to prepare the country for naturally occurring public health emergencies and deliberate biological threats?
® The United States, Russia, and China have all tested space weapons designed to shoot down satellites. What specifically will you do to ensure the protection of space assets and prevent the development and deployment of antisatellite weapons?
® More broadly, what would you do to prevent an escalation of military competition between the United States and China?
The answers to these questions are vital to understanding how the next president will run his or her administration and what national security policies he or she will make a priority. While the Iraq War should take center stage during this election, candidates should not ignore discussions on other national security matters that will have a global impact for decades to come.