t the presidential and vice presidential debates last week, it wasn't an unmentioned elephant onstage but a ticking time bomb.
The candidates are alike in wanting not to discuss it. Yet the thing ticks on, and so far the debate moderators have ignored it, too, making America resemble an out-of-control alcoholic who, night after night, thinks nothing of driving home from the bar.
Denial has become a way of life, but disaster is coming.
Regular readers of this column will have already guessed that I am referring to the smoldering crisis of nuclear weapons.
The left-over Cold War arsenals of the United States and Russia pose the greatest danger, but a revitalized contagion of nuclear weapons spawned by America's unrenounced nuclear addiction is a danger, too.
Meanwhile, Al Gore and George W. Bush are allowed to pretend they don't hear the ticking. At the debate tomorrow night this denial should end, and these questions should at last be asked:
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Ask Bush to explain and defend his gleeful support for last year's Senate defeat of this treaty. Does he intend as president to resume nuclear testing? How will he discourage other nations from resuming? Ask Gore, who supports the treaty, to explain why the administration of which he is a part declined over the years to make its passage a priority? As president, what will he do to resuscitate the treaty in the Senate?
The Missile Defense System: Bush is eager to deploy a system. Gore is ambivalent. Ask both candidates to explain why a movement to deploy such a system will not, as America's friends and rivals alike insist, re-ignite the arms race? Ask each to explain why he ignores the nearly unanimous conviction of the scientific community that no such system can ever work. And how will they pay for it?
ABM Treaty: For the sake of that system, Bush has declared a readiness to abandon the longstanding ABM Treaty. Gore is ambivalent. Ask each candidate to explain why he does not regard the solemn commitment made by the American government to be absolutely binding? Are treaties to be adhered to only as long as they seem convenient? How would the candidates react if other world leaders announced their readiness, or possible openness, to abandon other solemn treaties?<
Moving nuclear missiles off hair-trigger: Both Russia and the United States have thousands of missiles ready to launch in minutes. Bush has said he favors some ''de-alerting'' of such missiles. Gore has not been clear, although the administration of which he is a part has not moved to de-alert. Ask each candidate to explain the benefit of the hair-trigger, especially given the rapidly deteriorating condition of Russian systems of command and control. Why should voters not be worried about an accidental launch?
The rotting arsenal of Russia: Ask each candidate whether he believes that helping Russia control, and dispose of, its deteriorating nuclear warheads is urgent? If so, what more will he do about it? If not, what does he expect to happen in Russia as the problem worsens?
No first use: Ask each candidate to explain why America should not pledge never to initiate a nuclear war? If he declines, ask how he himself would order a first strike.
Ultimate goal of nuclear abolition: Ask each candidate to explain his arms reduction goals. Does he believe that America will always need a nuclear arsenal? If so, ask him to explain why other nations should not also want to maintain, or obtain, nuclear weapons? Why is the ultimate abolition of nuclear weapons not a reasonable goal?
On the margins of this campaign, trying hard to influence it, are numerous national security veterans who appreciate the urgency of such questions. They are former military officers, diplomats, defense secretaries - a range of experts who are being mobilized by the Global Security Institute and the Fourth Freedom Forum. They see the overriding importance of the nuclear questions, and want candidates to face them.
I spoke by phone to one such expert last week, Ambassador Richard Butler, former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq. The nuclear questions, he said, have been ''wrongfully absent from this campaign and the debates. This is the election of the keeper of the nuclear keys. A truly courageous candidate would say thank you'' to those who raised such questions. He would understand them as essential to his most serious responsibility as president. He would want to be asked such questions and would expect to be judged on how he answered.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the the Globe.
