For a Republican, McCain is surprisingly concerned about the difficulties impoverished nations face. See here:

http://www.onevote08.org/ontherecord/compare.html?c=8

Nonetheless, I agree that it's most unlikely that he would as president cut wasteful defense spending so that more money could be spent on helping the poor improve their circumstances. And that's a shame.

this is a bogus issue.

the US does not have 10,000 nuclear bombs. the number is closer to 6600. and we are already required by treaty to reduce that number to 2200 or less by 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/18/bush-nuclear.html

6600+ is the number of active warheads. Including inactive, decommissioned nuclear warheads the number is closer to 10,000 according to Lawrence Korb, Ronald Reagen's Assistance Secretary of Defense.

http://www.njit.edu/publicinfo/newsroom/nuclear_article.php

The US military's apparent willingness to add "mini-nukes" and "bunker buster" nuclear weapons to its arsenal is especially disturbing. This trend undermines the long-standing US commitment to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. The United States has a stockpile of more than 10,000 nuclear warheads, 7,000 of which are operational--far more than needed to achieve a military objective, even if that objective is "guaranteed mutual destruction." Nevertheless, President Bush has asked for an additional $6.8 billion in his 2005 budget to "upgrade" U.S. nuclear capabilities. Stephen Schwartz, Executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has termed this funding request a "nuclear revival." Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) stated, " We don't need new weapons, and in fact we cause more harm than good in our relations with other countries and in our moral position on nuclear nonproliferation."

Also see #7 at http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx

I suspect Korb is Cohen's source for the 10,000 number, and it includes inactive, stored warheads.

"this is a bogus issue."

And are you suggesting that, to use your preferred figure of 6600 nuclear warheads, that a stockpile that is the equivalent of 100,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs is necessary?

150,000 is 'bogus' but 100,000 is ok?

$14 billion is 'bogus' but $9.5 billion is ok?

And I suspect the storage cost of the 3,400 inactive warheads is less per unit - and probably unavoidable....but in the end the exact number is a distraction from the question of priorities -- the subject of this post.

McCain equals more of the same wasteful, bloated unnecessary spending that supports big business and the defense industry, while Obama favors working Americans as a higher priority.

i named it a bogus issue because you said that mccain wouldn't reduce our nuclear aresenal. yet, whoever the president is has a treaty obligation to reduce it. oh, and it was GWB who wanted and got that reduction in nuclear warheads. he also ordered a unilateral reduction in the aresenal when he became president. just for full disclosue.

am i happy with the number of nuclear weapons in the world? hell no. do i want it lower? yes. do i think that either obama or mccain will be able to reduce it more than we are already obligated for? no. do you want to throw up anymore strawman arguements for me to knock down?

and lee, the only thing obama favors is himself. while mccain has a proven history of favoring his country.