Herman Cain on Foreign Policy: Does He Know China Has Nuclear Weapons?

Lest 240 sound like a negligible number in comparison to the United States' 8,500 or Russia's 11,000, remember that only two nuclear weapons have ever been used in warfare, and they obliterated two cities and killed more than 200,000 people -- and today's hydrogen fusion bombs are exponentially more powerful than those first atomic fission bombs.

Follow us

Those are the stakes, but Cain either is not aware of them or doesn't care, because he has presented his lack of foreign policy knowledge almost as a point of pride. He said, for instance, that he would learn who the president of "Uzbeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan" was when he had to meet him, and that in the meantime he doesn't need to know, because "how's that going to create one job?"

Here's something Cain seems to have forgotten: The president is responsible for more than just the economy.

Obviously, the Great Recession makes the economy today's top priority, and we need a president who can create jobs and reduce the deficit, but "the economy is the top priority" does not mean "everything else is largely irrelevant," which seems to be Cain's interpretation. If all he wants to do is fix the economy, he shouldn't be president -- he should be treasury secretary or chief economic adviser to the president.

When Cain is asked about specific foreign policy issues that he might face as commander in chief, he either makes questionable statements -- as in his China gaffe or his statement that he would negotiate with al-Qaida to exchange all of the detainees in Guantánamo for one American soldier -- or tries to dodge them.

Cain's China Strategy

His "China strategy," for example, was just this: "It gets back to economics. China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy, much bigger, but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China."

That is an excellent component of a China strategy -- but it alone is not a China strategy. Foreign policy can't be run exclusively based on economic principles. How about Iraq? Afghanistan? What would he have done about Moammar Gadhafi? How would he have gone about killing or capturing Osama bin Laden? What will he do about countries like Iran that are trying to develop nuclear weapons illicitly?

Cain addressed that last one in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, telling the conservative talk show host that he would "maximize the use of our ballistic missile defense capability" against Iran. When O'Reilly pointed out that putting more missiles into play would lead to "a shooting war with Iran," Cain replied, "That's all right."

That's all right? If after full consideration you decide the best foreign policy strategy is to put more missiles in the Middle East, OK, but you can't just cavalierly dismiss the possibility of triggering yet another all-out war. Has Cain even thought about these things, or does he just say the first thing that comes to his mind?