Bush Vs. Kerry: Tackling the Threat of Nuclear War

Reuters ^ | Thu, Oct 21, 2004 | Louis Charbonneau

[Area Freeper]

Thirteen years after the end of the Cold War the two main candidates for the U.S. presidency agree that the threat of nuclear attack has never been greater.

The biggest nuclear shock of 2004 was the discovery of a global black market run by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan that supplied sensitive atomic technology and know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea -- and possibly other countries.

That has made proliferation an important campaign issue of the U.S. campaign, with Democrats and Republicans exchanging verbal blows over who is most fit for the task of confronting rogue nations and preventing them from getting the bomb.

The campaign of Democratic challenger John Kerry accused President Bush this week of sitting "on the sidelines" and allowing the nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea to increase.

The Bush re-election campaign says Kerry would be indecisive and weak in the face of the many threats facing the United States -- including the nuclear threat.

But not everyone believes the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust will rise or fall depending on who wins the Nov. 2 election.

"The results of the elections are less important than people think," said Gerald Steinberg, an expert in nuclear proliferation at Israel's Bar-Ilan University. "There are so many complexities to the issue of proliferation that coming up with an effective policy will be hard no matter who wins."

NO ENGAGEMENT

The United States, like Israel, accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under cover of an atomic energy program, a charge Tehran denies. Washington believes communist North Korea already has up to seven nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration has refused to engage directly with either Tehran or Pyongyang, which it listed along with pre-war Iraq as an "axis of evil."

It has criticized France, Britain and Germany for trying a "carrot and stick" approach to entice Iran to give up its ability to produce enriched uranium for weapons.

But some analysts say Bush's policy on rogue states may be dangerous. "By refusing to either engage or punish North Korea, the Bush administration has sent the signal to other states that they can acquire nuclear weapons and get away with it," said Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kerry has argued that the refusal to engage Iran and North Korea while invading Iraq, where no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found, has only emboldened the United States' enemies.

Gary Samore of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said hostilities in Iraq will constrain the U.S. president's ability to focus on the nuclear issue.

"American difficulties in Iraq will continue to absorb energy, weaken U.S. leverage and limit options for the time being," Samore said.

LIBYAN NUCLEAR THREAT DEFUSED

While analysts generally agree that the North Korean and Iranian threats have increased while Bush has been in office, they say the administration has had some major successes.

Foremost among them was persuading Libya to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for lifting economic and political sanctions.

Analysts and diplomats say the major difference between Bush and Kerry would be style. In his speeches, Kerry has embraced multilateralism and expressed a desire to act within broad coalitions, including the United Nations.

"Based on his statements, it appears Kerry would be more willing to work with other countries and international inspectors than the Bush administration," said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of a U.S. think-tank.

This would make Europeans more willing to collaborate with the United States at the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to tackle the Iranian nuclear crisis, some say.

"It would be easier for the Europeans to cooperate on a harder line (on Iran) because they would probably give Kerry credit for ... not being too pre-emptive in his own thinking," said Henning Riecke at the German Council on Foreign Relations.

On North Korea, Kerry says he would continue with the stalled six-party talks along with China and other states while opening direct talks with Pyongyang. However, some analysts and diplomats believe a new Bush administration would do the same.

While both Kerry and Bush would avoid military confrontation with North Korea, several European diplomats told Reuters Kerry might be more willing to use military strikes against Tehran because he would want to prove he is not a pushover.

"Ironically, Iran might actually be better off with Bush, because he's bogged down in Iraq in a way that Kerry would not be because it's not his mess," a diplomat told Reuters. (Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Mark Trevelyan in Berlin)

[jswsr]

The difference being: John Kerry seeks to limit our nuclear capabilities; the President seeks to limit the uclear capabilities of terrorists and/or terrorists regimes.

[Savage Beast]

This is just more Leftist wishful thinking. Bush is clear-thinking, decisive, and courageous. Kerry is fuzzy-headed and concerned with appearances.

[GOP_1900AD]

(Dr. Unsavage) EnGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaagement..... we need to enGAAAAAAAAaaaaaaage those who hate us and tell them that we HEEEEEAAAAAAaaaar them. We need to tell them we can FEEEEEEEEeeeeeel their pain! (/Dr. Unsavage).