THE CHURCH QUESTIONS THE CANDIDATES

Early this year, the Peace Commission of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington mailed a questionnaire to each of the presidential candidates. Each was asked to answer four basic questions about nuclear weapons and arms control. Answers were received from the three remaining Democratic candidates -Michael Dukakis, Albert Gore, and Jesse Jackson -- responding to each of the questions in some detail. The likely Republican nominee, George Bush, also sent a response, but it was a general statement of his positions on arms control and didn't respond directly to the questions. Because Sen. Gore has dropped out, his answers are not given here. The others are excerpted below:

============================================================================

GEORGE BUSH: We must never forget that Soviets and Americans proceed from very different principles in this area as in others. The awful prospect of nuclear war is as threatening to the Soviet people as it is to us. Yet at the same time, Soviet leaders have tried to use the Western public's understandable anxieties about nuclear weapons to undermine the West's defense strategies and its will to resist Soviet political and military pressures. In reality, the biggest danger we have faced is not nuclear war but nuclear blackmail. This fundamental problem has not changed with the arrival of new Soviet leadership and the policy of "glasnost." We see exactly the same old Soviet strategy -the effort to "delegitimize" the West's nuclear deterrence policies -- in the supposedly "new thinking" of the new Soviet leadership.

MICHAEL DUKAKIS: There can be no winners in a global nuclear war, and I'm distressed by the periodic reports about military theorists concocting scenarios for a "winnable" nuclear war. However, I don't believe that a President can flatly rule out the possibility of a first use of nuclear weapons in response to an overwhelming conventional attack on the United States or our allies. It is essential that we reduce our dependence on nuclear weapons to deter conventional attack. Our NATO commander has said that, given the current conventional balance in Europe, we might be forced to use nuclear weapons within a few days after an invasion by the Warsaw Pact. We and our allies must move away from this posture of "early first use" by strengthening our conventional forces, focusing on improving readiness and sustainability. At the same time, we should pursue negotiations for assymmetrical reductions in conventional forces in Europe. This is the best way to assure that nuclear weapons will never be used.

JESSE JACKSON: Historically, the moral justification for war has been that the ends justify the means. In the nuclear age, the means would eliminate the ends. Pushing the nuclear button cannot be morally justified.

============================================================================

GEORGE BUSH: The phrase "nuclear-free" brings no added safety unless we also correct the conventional arms imbalance and strengthen deterrence in other ways. We must not pretend to ourselves that we can avoid this next round of the arms control struggle with our adversaries. A deterrent strategy based on strategic defenses -- coupled with deep reductions in offensive forces -- could offer us the most stable and secure environment of all. The future can find the United States and the Soviet Union, although still adversaries, nevertheless having found a path toward deep reductions in nuclear arms, as well as having banned those insidious chemical and biological weapons from the face of the earth.

MICHAEL DUKAKIS: It is unrealistic to think -- or to promise -- that nuclear weapons can be eliminated entirely. But we must strive for the lowest possible level consistent with our national security and work to create a world in which the chance of their use is drastically diminished.

JESSE JACKSON: The abolition of nuclear weapons may become a practical possibility, but only if we begin to take steps now to reduce nuclear arsenals. We need to challenge the Soviets to move beyond a permanent Cold War relationship and join us in building the common security arrangements that we both need to survive. The INF Treaty is an important but limited first step. A second step would be a moratorium -- and then a ban --on the testing of nuclear weapons and flight testing of missiles. We should suspend the deployment of new nuclear weapons and challenge the Soviets to do the same

===========================================================================

GEORGE BUSH: Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term, SDI will be an effective deterrent. America should be freed from the threat of nuclear annihilation. It is both moral and logical to look for a solution that is better than mutually assured destruction. SDI has a strong moral underpinning. I support the policy of mutually assured survival. And that's the whole idea behind SDI. SDI, when perfected, will put weapons at risk instead of people, and would reduce the threat of accidental attack turning into massive tragedy.

MICHAEL DUKAKIS: The Administration's SDI program is a fantasy -- a technological illusion which most scientists say cannot be achieved in the foreseeable future. The defenses they envision won't make the United States more secure -- they will simply fuel the arms race, as each new system produces a counter-system, with no increased security. Deploying defenses could make nuclear war more, not less, likely. I support continued research at about the funding level in 1983 -- before the President announced his SDI -- as long as the research is consistent with the ABM Treaty.

JESSE JACKSON: No, the development of SDI isn't justified militarily, economically, or morally. Star Wars is a cruel hoax and I don't support its development, testing, or deployment. It offers an impossible technological solution to a political problem. It will cost over a trillion dollars if pursued, and in the end will not produce a defense but an arms race in the heavens. Space-based weapons will generate counter weapons which will generate counter-protective weapons which will generate first strike space plans. Our coffers will be robbed; our science distorted; and our insecurity increased.

=============================================================================

GEORGE BUSH: We must start from the fact that we disagree with the Soviets on virtually every question of how human beings should govern themselves. We disagree about the proper relationship between the citizen and the state. Even on the most basic question of one's relationship to God, we disagree. What is more, this moral conflict may be irreconcilable. As a democratic nation, we do not relish or seek confrontation or conflict. Nor are we interested in power over others. But as it happens, we face an adversary that considers our decency and democratic values as weakness. To them, struggle, violence, and power over others is vital to success. The modern Soviet regime has been ideologically driven to expand its global reach, not shrinking from the use or threat of force. Over the past seven years, this Administration has followed a steady approach in dealing with the Soviet Union based on three principles which I will continue to follow as President: realism, dialogue, and strength.

MICHAEL DUKAKIS: There is nothing inevitable about conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. We must be willing to pursue agreements with the Soviets that will not only reduce the risk of military conflict but increase understanding between the US and Soviet people. We should have begun long ago to work together on international problems -on health care; on cooperation in space; on world hunger; on the environment. Mr. Gorbachev has stated the Soviets' willingness to talk about cooperation in all these areas. We should engage them; we should test them; we should work with them; we should do everything we can to get the job done.

JESSE JACKSON: The Golden Rule establishes equality and justice as a foundation of relationships. The Golden Rule rejects domination of one individual by another, and, if applied to countries, one state by another. Likewise, our relationship with other countries, particularly those in the Third World, must be based on equality. I have proposed that we redefine our relationship with the Third World, based on three principles: support and strengthen the rule of international law, promote self-determination and human rights, and support international economic justice and development. We should seek joint ventures with the Soviets -- in exploring space, in offering aid to the Third World, in cooperating on the threats to our humanity -- the depletion of our atmosphere, the destruction of our rain forests and environment, the spread of disease and malnutrition, the plague of drugs. We can learn to work together on common concerns, begin to talk together and move close to applying the fundamentals of the Golden Rule.

===========================================================================