· What level of missile defense and nuclear weaponry will best protect US security? · How should the US keep its military ready for 21st century challenges? · Should the 'don't ask don't tell' policy towards gays in the military be continued?

Today the U.S. government spends about 16 percent of its budget on defense, down from about 50 percent in the early 1960s. (In contrast, less than 1 percent of the budget is spent on foreign aid.) The number of troops on active duty is also about a third less than at the end of the Cold War.

The debate this year is about how to keep the military prepared for 21st century conflict, and how the country should go forward with development of a missile defense shield. Neither Bush nor Gore questions the rationale for a missile defense system, despite the criticisms of some experts who think the shield is unnecessary and unworkable. This is in marked contrast to Green party candidate Ralph Nader, who says of missile defense: "It doesn't work, even according to the physics community... [An enemy] could bring a nuclear bomb in a suitcase -- so what are we gonna do, have a $500 billion suitcase defense system?"

Today the U.S. government spends about 16 percent of its budget on defense, down from about 50 percent in the early 1960s, and the number of troops on active duty is also about a third less than at the end of the Cold War. In contrast, less than 1 percent of the budget is spent on foreign aid, compared to 2 percent in 1975 and 4.5 percent in 1965.

Bush and Gore differ on nuclear arms reductions: Bush's proposals for unilateral reductions in nuclear armament is a marked departure from the historical stances of both parties on this issue. Both Bush and Gore also agree that service conditions for military men and women should be improved, but do not agree on what the military's position should be on gays.

Both candidates present themselves as the best defenders of the nation's armed forces and defense infrastructure, with Bush taking the offensive by accusing the Clinton/Gore administration of weakening the military by not providing it with enough funds and resources. "If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report 'Not ready for duty, sir,'" Bush said during his address at the Republican National Convention. Defense Secretary William Cohen, a Republican, vigorously denied these charges, and was joined by high-ranking officers in the respective services.

Gore has been quick to tout his service as a military journalist in Vietnam. Though Gore is now careful to stress that he was rarely in harms way, he maintains, "I was proud to wear my country's uniform. And my own experiences gave me strong beliefs about America's obligation to keep our national defenses strong. " During his years in Washington, Gore developed a keen interest and valuable experience in foreign policy, helping to negotiate arms reduction treaties and promoting the nuclear test ban treaty. In discussing defense issues, Gore frequently mentions that he voted against the Democratic party line in some instances: he was for the "Star Wars" missile defense, and he was one of only 10 democratic senators who supported the use of military force in the Gulf War.

Bush and Gore differ on nuclear arms reductions: Bush's proposals for unilateral reductions in nuclear armament is a marked departure from the historical stances of both parties on this issue. Both Bush and Gore also agree that service conditions for military men and women should be improved, but do not agree on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy toward gays: Bush supports it but Gore does not. The candidates also differ on when to deploy the military overseas. Though they use similarly cautious language, Bush favors a much more limited role for the military, focused only on fighting and winning wars rather than what he terms "nation building." During the second debate, Bush referred to Somalia as a case in point: the solely military mission of the American troops was changed to nation building, leading to the military debacle and subsequent pull-out.



What level of missile defense and nuclear weaponry will best protect US security ?

Gore:  He believes that a full scale Star Wars-style missile defense system of the kind proposed by Bush is unworkable and too expensive. He has called for 'limited' missile defense using 100 to 250 ground-based interceptors. Gore believes America will be threatened by a small 'rogue' state with less sophisticated ICBMs; a less complex defense is sufficient. He also thinks Bush's model will provoke Russia and will wreck the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. "The ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of strategic stability in our relationship with Russia," he has said. At the same time, Gore criticizes Bush's proposal to unilaterally reduce the number of nuclear warheads as destabilizing to world peace; all such changes, Gore believes, should be negotiated. · (more on Gore's position on missile defense.)

Bush:  He has proposed a much larger system using about 750 ground-based interceptors deployed at six areas in the US, plus 1,000 space-based interceptors. This is very similar to the missile shield proposed by his father President Bush in 1991, known as GPALS, or "global protection against limited strikes." Bush has said he is willing to defy the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia if necessary. He would also unilaterally reduce the size of the US nuclear arsenal to the "lowest possible number consistent with our national security", a notion that goes against Republican policy. He thinks this is necessary because the Cold War is over. However, he is opposed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which would ban all tests of nuclear weapons (and any nuclear explosions) worldwide. The CTBT was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996; since that time, 160 nations have signed, but the United States has not. · (more on Bush's position on missile defense.)

How should the US keep its military ready for 21st century challenges?

Gore:  He has called for $100 billion in increased military spending over the next decade, more than double Bush's budget. Contrary to the Republicans' assertions, Gore claims credit for stemming a decline in military strength before he and Clinton took office. "The number of divisions were reduced. I argued that we should reverse that trend and take it back up," he said in the third debate. Gore has backed heavy investment in technology, "the modernization of strategic and tactical weaponry". Gore says Bush has proposed skipping one generation of weapons-- a "mistake," in Gore's view, which could result in the military losing its edge.

Gore also backs sweeping investments in pay raises, housing, childcare, education and healthcare for soldiers and veterans. He thinks it is disgraceful that soldiers should have to live off food stamps: "Our armed forces should be commemorated on stamps. They shouldn't have to use them to buy groceries," he has said.

Bush:  He has called for a $1 billion pay raise, and better housing and more training for soldiers. He has also proposed a $20 billion investment in research and development, with at least a fifth going towards the purchase of next-generation weapons, out of a total budget of $45 billion. Replying to Gore's charge that he would "skip" one generation of weapons, Bush said during the third debate that he supports moving beyond conventional weaponry towards new technology which would "make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal." He says this is needed to plan strategically for the battlefield of the future.

Bush has been mostly opposed to interventions of a humanitarian nature in countries deemed outside the US national interest. "I'm concerned that we're over-deployed around the world. I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn you confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place," Bush said during the third presidential debate.

Should the "don't ask don't tell" policy towards gays in the military be continued?

Gore:  He does not support the "don't ask don't tell" policy--now frequently called the "don't ask, don't tell, don't harrass" policy.

Gore thinks gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military without discrimination of any sort. "It is unacceptable that patriotic men and women who serve their nation with distinction are not only discharged, but suffer persecution and even violence," he has said.

Bush:  Bush supports "the don't ask don't tell" policy and would continue it as president. He says he would "respect and admire anyone who has served in any branch of our military and put his or her life on the line for our freedom."

· FRONTLINE's The Future of War
FRONTLINE examines how the army is preparing for the new threats of the post Cold War world.

· Al Gore's defense agenda

· George W. Bush's agenda

· The New York Times Defense Issue Updates

· "Dubya's atomic fib"
(Salon)

· "Paying Atten-shun to the military's needs"
(US News and World Report)

· "After the tank: new weapons and military readiness"
(US News and World Report)