Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Kerry: Nuclear Terrorism Is Gravest Threat to U.S.

Election 2004 John Kerry 2004

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 01 June 2004 - 11:51 AM

http://news.myway.co...31|reuters.html


Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nuclear terrorism is the gravest threat the United States faces, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Tuesday as he offered a plan to secure atomic arsenals and materials around the world.

"The enemy is different and we must think and act anew," Kerry said in excerpts of remarks prepared for delivery in West Palm Beach, Florida. "We have to do everything we can to stop a nuclear weapon from ever reaching our shore and that mission begins far away."

Well, Kerry finally woke up from a decade-long nap.....  Unfortunately for him, even Clinton saw this threat and worked to this end and Bush has continued and expanded that policy...  Kerry isn't saying anything new here....  except... wait a minute.....

Quote

Kerry has criticized President Bush for refusing to hold bilateral negotiations with North Korea. He has said he would adopt a two-track policy of continuing the six-party talks that include Russia, Japan, China and South Korea while also holding direct discussions with Pyongyang.

Kerry wants to have direct talks?!  To my mind this would make matters worse and show American legitimacy to probably the most repressive and paranoid government in the world, not to mention distracting to our allies in the region (and yes, when N Korea is involved, China is an ally).

Quote

"Have we done everything we could to secure these dangerous weapons and materials? Have we taken every step we should to stop North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs?

Short of invading, yes, I think we have taken every step we could push with our allies putting broud-based diplomatic and economic pressure and military assistance where needed.

Quote

Have we reached out to our allies and forged an urgent global effort to ensure that nuclear weapons and materials are secured?"

Yes....  Not only do we have the Nunn-Lugar CTR program, we also have the now year-old PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) program which Russia signed onto yesterday, and the UNSC passed it's own version last month (11 months after the US and its allies did).  (Because of the PSI, Libya didn't get a recent weapon component shipment, after which they publicly renounced their weapons program)

Quote

Kerry has supported expanding and accelerating Nunn-Lugar as an important defense against terrorists and rogue states obtaining old Soviet weapons of mass destruction.

"If we secure all bomb-making materials, ensure that no new materials are produced for nuclear weapons, and end nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korea and Iran, we will dramatically reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism," he said.

How does he propose to do this if N. Korea and Iran are not willing to cooperate?  Appease them by giving them oil and food?  Unilaterally invading?  He's not saying a thing that hasn't been said before by the White House, the Congress, and the majority of the UN....

Quote

Last week, he outlined four "imperatives" -- rebuilding alliances "shredded" by Bush's go-it-alone policies, modernizing the U.S. military, using diplomacy, intelligence, economic power and American values to defeat threats and freeing the United States from its "dangerous dependence on Middle East oil.

I think he means ignoring the nations that did help us, capitulating to the ones that didn't, rebuilding the military and intelligence he voted to cut, and has no meaningful plan of finding new energy sources while lowering our dependence on foreign oil by increasing our own oil production here (and not necessarily ANWR).



Corwin

Edited by Corwin, 01 June 2004 - 03:18 PM.

"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#2 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 01 June 2004 - 12:06 PM

i recall at one point hearing that one of the nuclear treaties had been demolished by President Bush, was this accurate or just more hype?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#3 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 01 June 2004 - 12:12 PM

I know the the US pulled out of the ABM treaty.... but not nuclear reduction (non-proliferation) treaties... Every administration since I think Carter has actually expanded on those treaties...

Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#4 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 01 June 2004 - 12:49 PM

I've went over this before in other thereads but here's a quick overview so I don't have to dreg them up and link to them. Aside from the Antiballistic missile treaty, which the US left via the legal mechanisms incorporated into the treaty including the 6 months of warning to Russia that the US was going to do it, and isn't directly related to the number or proliferation of nuclear weapons the US has actually increased its efforts throughout the 1990s and this decades with a very continous policy of nonpoliferation and nuclear arms reduction.
The three START(Strategic Arms Reduction Talk) treatries have significantly reduced the number of nuclear weapons in both the Russian and American arsenals and even though Congress hasn't ratified the third one Bush is still committed to its principles of reducing both Russian and American arsenals to slightly over a thousand nuclear warheads. I've detailed in other places the enormous number of types of nuclear weapons that simply no longer exist in the American inventory anymore, as well as the US footing the bill to finish completely removing all nuclear weapons from the Ukraine.
The United States has niether withdrawn from any nuclear treaties or ignored any during the time that Bush has been president and if anything hastened the disarmament of both the United States and Russia by holding the US to the START III treaty. He has maintained a Clinton era program to maintain nuclear knowledge that I have detailed elsewhere that will try to form a repository of the knowledge of retiring American nuclear scientists and engineers so thier unique skills aren't lost and part of that program includes regular maintenance and possibly building a few new warheads to replace ones that have become nonviable  due to the passage of time.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#5 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 01 June 2004 - 03:25 PM

Cyberhippie, on Jun 1 2004, 10:04 AM, said:

i recall at one point hearing that one of the nuclear treaties had been demolished by President Bush, was this accurate or just more hype?
Bush did pull out of the ballistic missile treaty, but-- as I recall-- it was a cold war relic, and designed so that either party could pull out, with notice.

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nuclear terrorism is the gravest threat the United States faces, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Tuesday as he offered a plan to secure atomic arsenals and materials around the world.

Aside: Anybody else notice what informar rule Reuters broke in that sentance? I'm surprised. They usually follow it very closely...

Anyway, I do find the decision rather perplexing. When Bush is multilateral on Iraq, he's criticized for being unilateral. When he's multilateral with North Korea, he's criticized for not being unilateral. At this rate, Bush should do something truly unilateral, just to see if he's criticized for being multilateral.

Wouldn't separate bilateral talks disrespect the international community that Kerry is so worried about? :look:.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#6 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 01 June 2004 - 03:29 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 1 2004, 09:23 PM, said:

Aside: Anybody else notice what informar rule Reuters broke in that sentance? I'm surprised. They usually follow it very closely...
fraid not :blush:

Care to clue me in?

Edited by Cyberhippie, 01 June 2004 - 03:29 PM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#7 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 01 June 2004 - 03:36 PM

Cyberhippie, on Jun 1 2004, 01:27 PM, said:

fraid not :blush:

Care to clue me in?
Barring something incredibly unlikely, Kerry will be the Democratic presidential candidate.

However, until after the convention, he's properly referred to as the "Presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee". Don't get me wrong, I would be glad to see them drop it-- it's stupid-- but it's usually something they're anal about. Look at some examples, if you like.

Even in stories where they don't use 'presumptive', they usually use a similar adjective.

It's no big deal, but it did catch my eye.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, John Kerry, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users