LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotelol, we ban production while our enemies make them by the dozen, what an idiot.
Kerry’s Plan: Ban U.S. Weapons to Stop WMD Threat
NewsMax Wires
Wednesday, June 2, 2004
On the same day the U.S. government announced that terrorist Jose Padilla sought to obtain nuclear materials and detonate a dirty nuclear weapon in the U.S., Sen. John Kerry said the key to U.S. security is to unilaterally stop building nuclear weapons.
Touted as the major national security speech of his campaign so far, the presumptive Democrat nominee said that as his first order of business as president he will abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons, including “bunker-busting” nuclear weapons advocated by the Bush administration.
Kerry's statement for a unilateral U.S. nuclear arms moratium also coincided with the U.N. inspection agency's announcement that Iran continues to procure material to make nuclear weapons.
“As president, I will stop this administration's program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs,” Kerry told a crowd of supporters in West Palm Beach, Fla. “This is a weapon we don't need. And it undermines our credibility in persuading other nations. What kind of message does it send when we're asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons but developing new ones ourselves?”
But military experts say the new weapons are absolutely vital in the war on terror, as terrorist nations are building both command posts and nuclear weapons so deep underground the Pentagon does not have weapons to adequately strike these potential targets.
In late May, the House passed legislation that provided $27 million for research into the proposed high-yield Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, better known as the “bunker buster.”
The bill offered funding for new weapons research centered at Lawrence Livermore and Sandia weapons labs in California and an additional $9 million for research into other new thermonuclear weapons.
Though the U.S. has dramatically reduced its nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War, America's example has not been followed by other nations.
Russia, China and other rogue states have continued to maintain or develop new weapons of mass destruction, including thermonuclear devices.
During his speech Kerry acknowledged that despite the fall of the Berlin Wall, “... Russia still has nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to produce 50,000 more Hiroshima-sized bombs.” The Russian nuclear arsenal is more than double the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Kerry stated that one of the key elements of his plan is to “end the nuclear weapons programs in states like North Korea and Iran.”
At the same time Kerry called for a ban on new U.S. weapons, he offered little in specifics on how he would deal with North Korea and Iran if they failed to comply in stopping their WMD programs.
Kerry blamed the Bush administration for being too “fixated on Iraq while the nuclear dangers from North Korea have multiplied.” Kerry also said, “Let me say it plainly: A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable.”
He claimed that the Bush administration has given North Korea time to “have made enough new fuel to make six to nine nuclear bombs.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/220814.shtml
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
lol, we ban production while our enemies make them by the dozen, what an idiot.
Does the US actually need anymore. Surely what it has would put a dent in any adversary, whether they had them or not?
The fact is the US missile fleet is facing rapidly approaching mass obsolescense.
Ah.
But is that obselesence in the "geez, where is that green glow coming from?" or obscelence in that it might be nicer to have the latest upgrades?
You know what i mean, will having newer of the same make them any more deadly given that they are pretty deadly at the moment?
If it makes no difference in your opinion, why does it matter to you?Originally Posted by Trooth
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
Trooth, M21 is reffering to the upgrades in technogoly since the 1980's
I am asking questions in the hope of gaining more information to form a judgement.
Why does that bother you?
But that does sort of come back to my point? Is not upgrading putting America at risk? I could understand if the current stuff was falling aprt and there was a danger of accidents etc.
And therefore you care because...?
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
1) i like knowing things
2) US missles tend to not stay in the US so more of them might come my way
3) I like chatting with peeps such as M21 cos i find him informative
4) What has it got to do with you why i want to know?
Maybe I was unclear. Why do you oppose the US updating its Nukes?
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
Did i ever say that? I asked if it needed to.
I'm sorry the language you used gave me the mistaken impression that you opposed to such action.Ah.
But is that obselesence in the "geez, where is that green glow coming from?" or obscelence in that it might be nicer to have the latest upgrades?
You know what i mean, will having newer of the same make them any more deadly given that they are pretty deadly at the moment?
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
"Trooth, M21 is reffering to the upgrades in technogoly since the 1980's"
Actually i am referring to the fact that the Peacekeeper will be fully retired by 2005 and that the Minuteman fleets solid rocket motors are only rated as sound until 2020.
That's only 16 years before they won't work reliably....and there is NO replacement even planned for them yet.
This is actually a huge crisis, even if no one has bothered to report it.
The Trident D-5s are rated as servicable until 2040, and may very well end up being our only BM force post 2020.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: