Ok, talking about body language and poise and other intangibles is fun for a while, but ultimately it fails to rise to that exhortation of Professor Bacevich's that we should assess the policies of the candidates and make a choice based on which ones will best serve the nation. Citizenship is hard work! But that's not an excuse for the President so I'll be damned if it's going to be an excuse for me. Given Kerry's solid and unequivocal declaration that nuclear proliferation represents the number one threat to American security in the future, and given the President's agreement on that point, it seems to me that if any exchange in the debate should be examined in further detail, it is this one. I started this post aiming to follow up on praktike (and I hope I don't end up treading the toes of his very good earlier argument), myself, and several other post-debate post-mortems and to tackle those issues in further depth than I gave in my initial reactions. In the process it has expanded to something even bigger, and I think will require separation into several parts, so expect a multiple-post format over the next few days.

Broadly speaking, I think the threat of "nuclear proliferation" actually comprises three related issues. The first: How to prevent access to nuclear weapons technology from spreading to those who do not currently possess it. The second: How to deal with countries we view as rogue or non-status quo powers who either currently possess or may soon possess nuclear weapons. The third: How to defend against the threat of nuclear attack itself. In the debates we saw all three of these issues raised with mentions, respectively, of: the surplus nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and the proliferation network of A.Q. Khan; the regimes in North Korea, Iran, and as puported "success stories" Iraq and Libya ( -- notable absences from this list: India and Pakistan, quite possibly the most likely situation for future nuclear conflict in the world, though tensions seem to have simmered down in recent weeks with talks between Singh and Musharraf); and (theoretically) National Missile Defense (NMD). This first post covers the first topic. Warning: when I say this is long, I do mean long.   more »