Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kerry: no development of new nuclear weapons, will not "waste money" on deployment of missile defens
Nature ^

Posted on 09/16/2004 8:59:39 AM PDT by tallhappy

President Bush and Senator Kerry were asked questions by the journal Nature on a number of science and technology issues. Kerry vowed to end development of any new nuclear weapons and also called deployment of missile defense a waste of money.

These answers were opposite of President Bush's answers.

The quotes are below and follow the link for the entire interview which was maninly typical politican speak and not of too much interest.

Kerry: I would end the pursuit of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Kerry: I am not for rapid deployment of missile defense. We should not waste money on deployment at this point. .


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; election; kerry; kerryforeignpolicy; missiledefense; security
Link to pdf
1 posted on 09/16/2004 8:59:44 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

He'd "pursue" new nuclear weapons...

And not too quickly or effiencently ...and if he did...actually develope new weapons he would sell the technology to our enemies...

Kerry will betray America the very minute he gets a chance to

imo


2 posted on 09/16/2004 9:02:52 AM PDT by joesnuffy ( "Two Heads Are Better Than One"...."Unless They're On The Same Person" -Andy Sipowicz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Or as ALL liberals do, not say,

I send my kids to private school but you don't deserve the same special opportunities.

Your kids must attend public schools.(that's what the NEA wants me to say? Is that ok boys)

3 posted on 09/16/2004 9:05:41 AM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN (3 Purple Hearts? No blood? No Way!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Yeah, I think we should wait until the missles are actually inbound before deployment. Whoops, a little late there dude!

No problem though, we'll have our sticks, stones, clubs and maybe some bows and arrrows to defend ourselves with. Think of how "environmentally friendly" that would be!

I'm sure PETA, Greenpeace and Amnesty International would be pleased.


4 posted on 09/16/2004 9:07:47 AM PDT by garyhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Idiot. So we should just take a first strike? What a moron!


5 posted on 09/16/2004 9:08:46 AM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyhope

Don't forget spitballs!


6 posted on 09/16/2004 9:09:58 AM PDT by zeebee (I don't own pajamas. Can I still be a Freeper?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; Admin Moderator

Please edit the title of thread - Should be "No new development ..."

Usually, a thread title is clear, even with typo's ... But this one needs some help.


7 posted on 09/16/2004 9:10:10 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Will someone please give John Kerry a geography lesson? Notably focusing on Russia, China, and North Korea? (and Iran?)


8 posted on 09/16/2004 9:10:42 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever ("The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

In sum, Kerry would leave us vulnerable to North Korea.

No wonder why Kim Small Dong wants a Kerry victory.


9 posted on 09/16/2004 9:11:14 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

John Kerry would rather deploy a missile defense after Washington D.C., New York, Boston, L.A., Seattle, Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco are smoking, radioactive ruins.

His anti-terror policies are the same... He'd rather only fight back after we've been attacked.


I can't believe he expects people with functional brains to really vote for him! (That's right, he doesn't expect people with function brains to vote for him... He thinks Americans are only barely functioning intellectually. That's how he expects to win...)


10 posted on 09/16/2004 9:12:04 AM PDT by coconutt2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for Kerry. I can't believe he's so stupid as to push voters even farther away. This is going to be characterized as, "My fellow Americans....all those things they said about my voting record were true, apparantly. You see, I just stated that I thought deploying a missile shield to defend you and your loved ones was a waste of money. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming."


11 posted on 09/16/2004 9:12:21 AM PDT by mudblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Is that before or after you cut our conventional military forces back to nothing? I'm thinking, John, when you said world leaders wanted you to defeat George Bush could that have been the leaders of North Korea, Iran, and China?


12 posted on 09/16/2004 9:12:50 AM PDT by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy

What an idiotic statement. How does one "pursue" nuclear weapons? If someone has a nuclear weapon, the only way to "pursue" it is to either "destroy" the proud owner, or be destroyed.


13 posted on 09/16/2004 9:13:23 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever ("The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

My gut feeling is that Kerry more or less despises the military and views ALL military spending as a waste of money. This is a guy who is on record as saying that using a .50 caliber machine gun is a violation of the Geneva Convention!


14 posted on 09/16/2004 9:14:29 AM PDT by jpl (John Kerry is the 2-7 offsuit in the great Presidential poker game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
IOW, I'd rather avenge Americans than protect Americans...
15 posted on 09/16/2004 9:15:38 AM PDT by null and void (Bush-Bad, Kerry-Worse. Don't go from Bad to Worse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
See, when John Kerry is President, he's gong to be extra special nice to all our foreign friends, even those who are not our friends yet, just like he was nice to those nice but misunderstood folks from North Vietnam. Then when we give everyone in the world everything they ask for, they won't want to nuke us, and we can all live together in peace and harmony, skipping and dancing and singing Kumbaya for ever and ever.

The end

16 posted on 09/16/2004 9:18:26 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (www.swiftvets.com: where the truth lives on, after 35 years of Kerry lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
"John Kerry would rather deploy a missile defense after Washington D.C., New York, Boston, L.A., Seattle, Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco are smoking, radioactive ruins.

OH come on!

Kerry would at least defend his international socialism base voters!

Wouldn't he?

Sobering reality check....

I'm really wondering now if he really would defend his base voters in Washington D.C., New York, Boston, L.A., Seattle, Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco.

17 posted on 09/16/2004 9:20:53 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Statements like Kerry's encourage nuclear proliferation and endanger us all.

The value of missle defense is not only in the fact that if may stop a warhead after it's been launched but in also, and I argue more importantly, in that it sends a message that pursuing nuclear arms is pointless because we can stop them. In a world where all the nukes are intercepted, there's no point in developing them and risking the rath of the world for going nuclear.

In a world where we say we won't deploy an effective shield against nukes, nukes are worth getting.

Just another example of Kerry saying anything he thinks will help him get elected, even if it harms or risks the lives of Americans.


18 posted on 09/16/2004 9:21:58 AM PDT by 5by5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; Sidebar Moderator; Admin Moderator
Yes. Should be No new development (and wil is will).

Please change, thanks.

19 posted on 09/16/2004 9:25:50 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; Defender2; Cincinatus' Wife; Fedora; Squantos; Grampa Dave; ALOHA RONNIE; ...
Kerry wants us to push back our ABM helmet now.


David slaying Goliath after he exposed his own forehead

Didn't 9/11 teach us anything about air defense?

20 posted on 09/16/2004 9:31:35 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: risk

I'll be honest, they haven't convinced me that our current ABM hit-to-kill works. I'm all for an ABM, but I'd like to know that the target doesn't have to emit a tracking signal to hit, as in one of the few successful hits.


21 posted on 09/16/2004 9:35:37 AM PDT by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777

Don't you think it's worth the risk that it might fail? There was an argument that a USSR could overwhelm anything we could develop. But our biggest risk now is a rogue ICBM.


22 posted on 09/16/2004 9:39:22 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
It isn't perfect, but getting better.

What do you realistically expect? 100% percent hits right off the bat?

But seriously, I'd rather be able to get 80% chance at destroying a single "unintended" or "accidental" or "sabotaged" (terrorists take over a Soviet missile site) Soviet launch rather than lose a US city!

Also, anti-US "scientists" keep claiming how "easy" it would be to create moving targets, chaff-equivilents, and changes in movement to dodge an interceptor.

But nobody has built those yet, except us.

So, do you refuse to build and test a machine gun that PROBABLY CAN kill the two terrorist running up the hill at your school playground with a hand grenade just because they "could" buy a tank that couldn't be destroyed by a machine gun?
23 posted on 09/16/2004 9:43:11 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
deployment of missile defense a waste of money.

Dear FnK: I thank you; my children thank you. We really love living in the nuclear gunsight. It makes life so much more exciting knowing that if just one missile falls into the wrong hands, that you would give away the means to stop it...

/sarc

24 posted on 09/16/2004 9:44:23 AM PDT by Indie (Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

If this clown makes it to the White House, we will all be dead.


25 posted on 09/16/2004 9:49:15 AM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

"Kerry: I am not for rapid deployment of missile defense. We should not waste money on deployment at this point. ."

JUST ANOTHER REASON WHY KERRY IS UNFIT TO BE COMMANDER-in-CHIEF --> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200405%5CSPE20040503a.html


26 posted on 09/16/2004 9:49:43 AM PDT by Gucho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Senator Kerry is certainly waging an extraordinarily poor campaign.

Such clumsiness is really remarkable; he is expending a vast amount of money in order to lose by a large, perhaps even historic, vote in the Electoral College.

I am just trying to imagine what outlandish lefty position he will next espouse in public.

27 posted on 09/16/2004 9:50:17 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

kerry's already said that he wouldn't defend the US against outside attack. He'd treat terrorism as "local law enforcement issues" like clinton did. But then I think he said he would before saying again that he wouldn't


28 posted on 09/16/2004 9:52:08 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
In the meantime, ballistic missile threat is greater than ever before. Note that Iran actually tested and we saw them do it, a missile launched from an innocuous looking cargo ship. With them acquiring nukes, just imagine them shooting one of those from international waters into New York. Kerry does not want to develop a defense against it, by his own admission.

Remarks by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the Seventh Annual Space and Missile Defense Conference

RUMSFELD: In some respects, the threats are even more grave today. Roughly two dozen countries, including some of the world's most dangerous regimes, possess ballistic missiles and are attempting to acquire missiles of increasing range and destructive capability. A number of these states are estimated by the intelligence community to have programs relating to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. North Korea, as we know, is working to develop and deploy missiles capable of reaching not just their neighbors but our country and other countries as well. The same can be said of Iran. In fact, Iran had a test just this week -- last week, I guess.

History has taught us that weakness is provocative. To the extent people see an area of weakness, they will take advantage of it. And we're seeing that in Iraq, we're seeing that in Afghanistan and we're seeing it around the world with the attacks that have taken place. We have a weakness, and it is a weakness with respect to ballistic missiles. And the longer the delay in deploying even a limited defense against these kinds of attacks, the greater the likelihood of an attempted strike. Additionally, without any defense against missiles, terrorists and rogue regimes could use the threat of an attack to try to intimidate the United States or our allies and friends from acting against them.

QUESTION: As both a citizen and someone who's been involved in ballistic missile defense for a long while, something that I personally worry about is what's called the rusty-freighter threat scenario, where terrorists get a hold of a Scud-like missile, maybe even shorter range than that, crudely launch it from near our shores; and even with a conventional warhead, if that landed in a mall parking lot or in a cornfield, it would still be a big political success for them.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you. I agree. When we were doing the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, we observed that one of the nations in the Middle East had launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel. They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.

29 posted on 09/16/2004 10:12:21 AM PDT by QQQQQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: QQQQQ

bttt, QQQQQ


30 posted on 09/16/2004 10:14:32 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Kerry will betray America the very minute he gets a chance to

Already did 30 years ago, already does everyday of the week.

31 posted on 09/16/2004 10:19:00 AM PDT by 11Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson

can you help correct the thread title:

"to" must be "No" and "wil" should be "will"

We're losing crediblity here.... 8<)

Not that you've got nothing else to do but listen to us cranky pajama-clad worriers here........

But this htread titel is informative, becasue it summaries the whole position.

Or is very misleading about his whole position!

"Kerry to continue nuclear weapons development ..." is what it "sounds" like when first read!


32 posted on 09/16/2004 10:19:22 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson
Yes. It's a typo.

There's no preview for the headline.

33 posted on 09/16/2004 10:25:21 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson
Thanks for changing to Title.

I think this is a pretty significant policy issue regarding national security and I am sorry to have made such a typo.

I think people should know Kerry plans to not deploy missile defense and to end current development of next generation nuclear weapons. This latter is a major policy shift that to my knowledge not even Clinton or Carter proposed or did.

Neither can help us in any way. There is not reason to hold his policy.

We are the news media now and this won't be talked about much in the MSM.

34 posted on 09/16/2004 12:50:55 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson