Kerry outlines nuclear terrorism program

Pledeges to appoint coordinator for nuclear weapons

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 Posted: 2:02 PM EDT (1802 GMT)

 

 

 

John Kerry speaks Tuesday on nuclear weapons and terrorism.

 

 

 

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday outlined measures he contended would dramatically reduce the possibility that terrorists could attack the United States with nuclear weapons, which he called the greatest threat facing the nation.

 

"We need to employ a layered strategy to keep the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands," Kerry said in an appearance at the Port of Palm Beach in Riviera Beach, Florida

 

Thanks for the update, John.

Kerry called for building and leading a new era of alliances, modernizing the U.S. military, making full use of American diplomatic, intelligence and economic power, and freeing the nation from its dependence on Mideast oil.

 

Translation: Give other countries money to play nice, spend more on the military and do a bunch of other stuff Bush has alreadty proposed or is doing.

 

 

"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.

 

Pretty good idea. But how are you going to make that happen?

Kerry said securing weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union would be a priority in relations between the United States and Russia, and he proposed working with U.S. allies to establish global standards for safekeeping nuclear materials.

 

Sweet. Global standards that problem countries didn't listen to in the past and aren't going to adhere to in the future.

As president, Kerry said, he would also lead an international coalition seeking a global ban on production of material for new nuclear weapons.

 

Once again, sounds warm and fuzzy... How are we going to do that John?

To help reduce existing stocks of nuclear materials and weapons, the United States should stop developing a new generation of nuclear weapons and speed up reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, Kerry said.

 

Ending nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea also would be a priority, Kerry said, and he proposed closing the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows those countries and others to use civilian nuclear power programs as cover for weapons development.

 

Yea, like it wasn't a priority before. Yet again, how John, how?

Toughening export controls, stiffening penalties and strengthening law enforcement and intelligence sharing would help the United States prevent trafficking in bomb-making materials and components, Kerry said.

 

Like that isn't being done now.

 

He pledged to appoint a national coordinator to focus on securing nuclear weapons and materials around the world.

 

Translation: Another bureaucracy.

"We have to do everything we can to stop a nuclear weapon from ever reaching our shore -- and that mission begins far away," Kerry said.

 

"We have to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world so that searching the containers here at the Port of Palm Beach isn't our only line of defense, it is our last line of defense."

 

Thanks for clearing that up John. And to think that thought that the war agaisnt nuclear terrorism started by searching behind my toilet.

Kerry's 17th visit

Both Kerry and President Bush are underscoring the importance of Florida in the electoral politics of 2004 with frequent visits to the state.

 

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt dismissed Kerry's plan as embracing objectives already laid out by the president.

 

"His failure to accept the success of negotiations with Libya and his criticism of a multilateral approach to confront the threat from North Korea demonstrate that John Kerry can't help but play politics with national security," Schmidt said.

 

Ashton Carter, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Clinton administration, said Bush pursues nuclear supplies a bit at a time and country by country.

 

Kerry would accelerate the process by getting rid of all supplies at once, Carter said in remarks on behalf of the Kerry campaign.

 

And once again... How John, how?

LOL! Good stuff Fillet.

 

A sight you migh like is.... http://stophillarypac.com/ and then go to the translator...good stuff! :thumbup

Guys, the world is going to blow up, run for the hills!

duck and cover.

He's a moron.

 

 

I dont know about you, but...I'd much rather have a "moron" in the white house than a "dangerous moron" i.e. Bush

Guys, the world is going to blow up, run for the hills!

In other words, vote for me or you will all die a gruesome, prolonged and firey death!!!!!

Exactly.

Kerry's full of s***...as are all democrats.

Kerry's full of s***...as are all democrats.

huh? There are smart people on both sides who do good things. Your going to Wharton and your this thick?

Kerry's full of s***...as are all democrats.

huh? There are smart people on both sides who do good things. Your going to Wharton and your this thick? Agreed theres plenty of good done by both sides to not see that is foolish. I also need to commend tonyi, he seems like perhaps the most knowledgeable person on this board and usually hits the nail on the head :notworthy

Kerry's full of s***...as are all democrats.

huh? There are smart people on both sides who do good things. Your going to Wharton and your this thick? Agreed theres plenty of good done by both sides to not see that is foolish. I also need to commend tonyi, he seems like perhaps the most knowledgeable person on this board and usually hits the nail on the head :notworthy Ok, let me rephrase that....I don't support Kerry b/c as has been proved in this post, he doesn't seem to have any new ideas. His policy changes in order to fight the war on terrorism seem redundant and idealist to me. The only way to fight terrorism, prevent WMD's of falling in the hands of the enemy and safeguard our national security is through the actions that are being taken by the current administration. The terrorists will never surrender, they won't stop until we're defeated, and sadly, the only way to beat them is by going after them, something that past Democrat administrations...uhm, uhm...clinton...haven't done.

Honestly I dont blame clinton that much for letting bin laden go after the leader of sudan offered him to the US, because what has happened is done and we must move on, but the republicans are taking the hardline stance and thats the only way to win a war on terror much like when the fight was against marxism-leninism

Honestly I dont blame clinton that much for letting bin laden go after the leader of sudan offered him to the US, because what has happened is done and we must move on, but the republicans are taking the hardline stance and thats the only way to win a war on terror much like when the fight was against marxism-leninism

I know...one can't live forever in the past, but you have to remind people about the facts though!

 

What I do want to make clear is that we're fighting an enemy that is evil, and will accept no surrender unless his objectives are accomplished. Sitting back and saying how you're going to save the world from everything without a shot being fired is completely simplistic, and that's what the majority of the Democrats advocate. As you mentioned, apparently, they still haven't learned their lessons from the Cold War.

OK, thats something more tangible then saying "all dmeocrats are dummies!"

Honestly I dont blame clinton that much for letting bin laden go after the leader of sudan offered him to the US, because what has happened is done and we must move on, but the republicans are taking the hardline stance and thats the only way to win a war on terror much like when the fight was against marxism-leninism

This idea that there are other, less invasive, less intensive or less "hardline" ways to fight terror is what scares me the most.

 

Passive-agressive policy creation regarding terror and the concept that the US can take care of terror without stepping on some toes in the international community is a pre-cursor to isolationism. And if you care to look at WWI and WWII you see what isolationism and passive agressive diplomacy gets you.... a couple hundred thousand casualties when you have to deal with a problem that has grown out of control due to your unwillingness to address it in a timely fashion.