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?