Skip to comments.Kerry: no development of new nuclear weapons, will not "waste money" on deployment of missile defens
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. .
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
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)
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.
Idiot. So we should just take a first strike? What a moron!
Don't forget spitballs!
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.
Will someone please give John Kerry a geography lesson? Notably focusing on Russia, China, and North Korea? (and Iran?)
In sum, Kerry would leave us vulnerable to North Korea.
No wonder why Kim Small Dong wants a Kerry victory.
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...)
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."
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?
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.
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!
OH come on!
Kerry would at least defend his international socialism base voters!
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.
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.
Please change, thanks.
David slaying Goliath after he exposed his own forehead
Didn't 9/11 teach us anything about air defense?
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.
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.
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...
If this clown makes it to the White House, we will all be dead.
"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
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.
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
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.
Already did 30 years ago, already does everyday of the week.
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!
There's no preview for the headline.
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.