Safer?
If you were the Bush Administration (yes, all of it) and you wanted to make the world safe from terrorists' getting nuclear weapons, what would you do?
Some would suggest you support the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. After all, it limits the amount of fissile material in the world, meaning anyone who makes weapons-grade plutonium, whether Santa Claus or Niger, is doing so illegal. Not only that, but when combined with an inspection and verification regime, it means you can find out which countries have exactly how much plutonium to sell to Mr. Bin Laden - and thus stop them from doing it.
But if you're the Bush Administration, you reverse U.S. policy and support the FMCT without verification. After all, it would have been nice to know if Saddam had any yellowcake, it would be nice to know if North Korea has highly enriched uranium, and it probably wouldn't hurt to find out if Russia even knows where it keeps its old weapons, but according to your State Department, an inspection regime is "costly." And since you're a Republican, you believe in a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility while sparing no expense for national security.
Wait, what?
The Washington Post
Some would suggest you support the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. After all, it limits the amount of fissile material in the world, meaning anyone who makes weapons-grade plutonium, whether Santa Claus or Niger, is doing so illegal. Not only that, but when combined with an inspection and verification regime, it means you can find out which countries have exactly how much plutonium to sell to Mr. Bin Laden - and thus stop them from doing it.
But if you're the Bush Administration, you reverse U.S. policy and support the FMCT without verification. After all, it would have been nice to know if Saddam had any yellowcake, it would be nice to know if North Korea has highly enriched uranium, and it probably wouldn't hurt to find out if Russia even knows where it keeps its old weapons, but according to your State Department, an inspection regime is "costly." And since you're a Republican, you believe in a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility while sparing no expense for national security.
Wait, what?
The Washington Post
