Kerry’s Atomic Issues

I just cannot get behind the Democrats while John Kerry wears his combination thinking cap, dunce cone and tin foil hat.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – 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.”
Prior experience tells me that I am going to read something nebulous and poorly thought out in a second.
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, Fla.
Yep there it is. Kerry is getting predictable.


Look, this is not a seven layer dip we are talking about. How about some concrete ideas?
Worst hands? You mean like Iran and North Korea? The U.N. is doing a great job there, so no need to worry yourself, John. Why any day now I expect they might find their own asses.
When a nuclear WWIII breaks out in the Middle East or the Korean Peninsula, I’m sure we will all be sure to say your layered strategy worked great.
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.
John, you have no interest in modernizing the military, which is already near the cutting edge, you’ve stated time and again that you want to stop or reduce military spending on Research and Development. You think U.S. intelligence assets have too much power and should be scaled back.
As for freeing us from Mideast Oil, that is a great idea. Too bad you oppose nuclear energy and the current Green solutions are not there yet. I also recall you being against off shore drilling and tapping the Alaskan oil reserves. Personally I’m against that too, which is why I think nuclear power is still the way to go.
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.
Right. Like I said, the way to stop new production of nuclear materials is to shut down nuclear “breeder” reactors, which then means less energy and more dependence of foreign oil supplies.
How exactly are you going to stop the weapons programs in Iran and North Korea? You have no diplomatic levers to pull there, and you are against force of any kind. Or maybe you are for it, but forgot to tell us, and changed your minds, before you forgot to tell us, but now want to not not use force.
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. As president, Kerry said, he would also lead an international coalition seeking a global ban on production of material for new nuclear weapons.
It’s a priority now, and has been under two presidents. Perhaps you didn’t notice that we have spent a great deal of money dismantling Russian nukes and trying to employ Russian scientists?
As for stopping production of nuclear material you are dooming developing countries to poverty that are either dependent on Middle East oil, or have no oil supplies of their own. Cheap, nuclear energy from light water or even breeder reactors are the ways for them to get electricity.
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.
Yes, because Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Korea and France would never lie to us about their weapons programs, so we should just stop right now.
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.
How exactly will you get North Korea to abide by the NNPT? Harsh language? Iran is running rings around the U.N.’s minimal efforts to document their nuclear programs AND they are developing stealth missiles so that they can deliver a nuclear payload into Israel. Did you plan on approving a U.S. or U.N. force invade Iran to stop them?
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. He pledged to appoint a national coordinator to focus on securing nuclear weapons and materials around the world.
You don’t support increased spending on intelligence assets, so how would you know if export controls were being violated? Do you know how many cargo ships their are in the world? How many billion and billions of tons of goods that are moved every day? There is no way to search every ship, let alone every container for contraband weapons.
Sharing intelligence with allies, like France, resulted in them selling the information to Iraq and Iran. Do you think that will change? The Palestinians are some of the leading bomb builders and trainers in the world. Are you going to stop US aid to them, and allow Israel to take a hard line against them?
Your national coordinator idea. Where is he in the chain of command? Homeland Security, State Department, FBI/CIA? How many people will this new Executive Agency require? Where will the money come from to pay for it?
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.

I agree whole heartedly. Which means saber rattling, economic sanctions, blockades and military force if necessary. Unfortunately the U.N. and many of our “allies” don’t favor those approaches. Were you planning on going it alone, making the hard choices, unilaterally, if necessary? If not then you may have to forget the whole deal.
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.
That may be the dumbest thing I ever heard. How, even assuming dozens of sovereign nations are going to just turn over their nuclear stockpiles to us, are we going to collect, safeguard, store and dispose of millions of tons of radioactive material, waste products, and equipment? Perhaps Kerry was thinking of having Superman throw all that stuff into the Sun?
How will we silence scientists to prevent them from selling their secrets? Re-education camps?
How will we provide alternate sources of power to billions of people? Even in Massachusetts they don’t want windmills cluttering up the landscape. And all the other forms of alternate power are pretty much useless. Take a look at this for a realistic look at alt energy.
As for the starving, freezing and in the dark billions, I guess they will be all warm and toasty inside knowing they are doing their bit for international cooperation.
Have candidate Kerry get back to me when he’s not in the dark on this issue.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. Al Maviva

    Steve,
    Kerry’s greatest campaign day thus far was last Thursday, a day on which he promised to restore America’s strength by adding 40,000 troops to the Army’s authorized strength.
    He said he would pay for this by cancelling all missile defense programs. Presumably this includes PATRIOT, the theater-level missile defense programs now starting to show promise, plus some sub-theater, but bigger than tactical level systems in development.
    I call Thursday his finest day yet, because on the same day Pakistan successfully tested a nuclear capable ballistic missile. “Ballistic” for all intents and purposes means it can get out of the atmosphere – and if you can get something into low Earth orbit, that means you can bring it down anywhere you like, nevermind the stated “range” of the missile. You can let the thing float for a while, then drop it, so long as you have the navigation system. And when it comes to nukes, I’d say a commercially available GPS system should do the trick – you wouldn’t need to get closer than 10 meters.
    Yes, I’m talking about the same Pakistan, whose intel services have helped Bin Laden all along, and the same Pakistan whose leadership is about 1 bullet away from being Taliban Afghanistan, Chapter II. It’s the same Pakistan that threatens to nuke India (and vice versa) about once a year over the Kashimir.
    So, to summarize, Kerry announced he’d abolish missile defense, on the same day an unstable country tested a missile capable of hitting Chicago.
    As they say on the Guinness adds, Brilliant!

  2. Steve Saporito

    I saw that brilliant bit of logic from Kerry too. I have been discussing it with some other people for a couple of days.
    Their argument supporting Kerry is that a MD system is throwing money at a non-urgent problem, while domestic dirty bombs are the real threat.
    I countered that Bush is taking the longer view as nations like China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea all have or almost have, ballistic platforms.
    A nation wide, working missile defense system will take at least 5-10 years to be designed, built and employed. North Korea, China and Iran will still be a nuclear threat to us in the next 20 years. It would be nice to think we won’t need it then, but I think we want all the protection we can get.
    As for the domestic dirty bomb threat, I agree that problem will not be solved by tossing money at a Star Wars system. There we need more money thrown at the CIA/FBI, and a real attempt to ferret out hidden terrorist in the USA.
    I just don’t see Kerry doing anything concrete about any of the threats we talked about.

  3. Pat in CA

    Unfortunately, Those people who are new to the political scense or are just making up their minds now will think that Kerry is making sense.
    Fortunately, There is a voting record that defines Kerry differently than the words he is using now.
    Fortunately, there may be enough time for us to point out like Sasha did the idiocy of Kerry’s statements.

  4. Sam

    Thank goodness Kerry isn’t president, and hopefully won’t be. If international politics is a game of 5-card stud poker, then Kerry is playing a hand full of jokers. Remember, this is a guy who said last week, “I’ll do what *I* think is best for this country,” and he’s supposed to represent *US* in the halls of power, be they Washington, DC or wherever. You don’t modernize an army by tossing its R&D groups, you don’t find terrorists and nuclear weapons by limiting your intelligence & law enforcement’s ability to do their jobs. I’m tired of hearing what rich liberals think is best for the country; they only live in a small part of it and then choose to ignore the larger part. I, like Hank Hill, live in “that useless mass of land between California and New York called America”, and I’m damn sure John Kerry doesn’t know what is best for my country.