Joe Biden on nuclear weapons

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.

On the question should the reliable replacement Warhead, or another smaller, “tactical” nuclear weapon be developed? Joe Biden opposes development. He states:

I support the Stockpile Stewardship program to maintain the reliability of our nuclear weapons. I also support changes at the margin to improve their reliability. But the RRW concept has been hijacked by people who would push the envelope of changes that can be made without new nuclear testing and the Department of Energy is using it as an excuse for maintaining a wastefully large nuclear weapons establishment. We should scrap RRW and go back to first principles: how many nuclear weapons do we really need? How can we most efficiently maintain their reliability, with no testing unless a catastrophic failure in those current weapons forces us to make changes that require new testing to certify repairs? How can we reduce the status that accrues to nuclear weapon, while maintaining enough weapons to deter an attack? Only when we can answer these questions can we consider any changes to current weapons designs.

On the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: I led the fight for CTBT ratification in 1999 and I will lead it in 2009. But securing 67 votes in the Senate won’t be easy. We must convince doubters of the reliability of our weapons. And we must find a means of assuring that any undetectable cheating will not pose a military threat to the U.S. We can’t wish these issues away. As President, I will work to resolve them so that the next Senate debate on CTBT produces a better result.

On the banning of space-based weapons: I support a ban on any weapons in space designed to cause damage on the ground, to supplement the existing ban on space based nuclear weapons. I also support a carefully crafted ban on destroying or disabling another country’s satellite. But we must guard against treaties that could ban space stations or require international inspection of space payloads. I doubt that a ban on a space based missile defense would be approved by the Senate.

On non-proliferation efforts: I have been a leading supporter of non-proliferation programs since 1991 and I have worked to protect and increase their funding, broaden their scope and relieve certification requirements that diverted them from the mission of dismantling WMD capabilities, securing dangerous materials and finding productive careers for former WMD personnel. Right now, I am pressing for improved IAEA safe guards at nuclear facilities; improved capability to determine the origin of nuclear materials so that we can bring deterrence into the 21st century; increased funding for ex-weapons scientists in the FSU; repeal of Nunn-Lugar certification requirements; destruction of chemical weapons in Libya; a program to allow Iraqi ex-weapons scientists to come to the U.S. (instead of Syria or Iran); a fund for implementing future nuclear agreements with Iran or North Korea; and increased funds for the very important low end of non-proliferation: buy backs of handguns and automatic weapons in troubled countries.