Kerry would stop production of new nuclear weapons.

[Q]

- I haven't heard this mentioned after the debate...but it's a very important issue and worthy of discussion. Kerry made a lot of sense when he stated that it was hypocritical of the Bush* government to expect an end to nuclear proliferation when the US was building a new generation of nuclear weapons. Kerry pledged to put an end to this insane program.

- New nuclear weapons and a missile defense system that doesn't work. Programs that fill the pockets of defense contractors and Bush* supporters...but won't make America any safer. Thanks go to Kerry for bringing up this important issue.

- Comments?

[not systems]

1. I was impressed with this clear statement.

Stopping domestic development of next generation
weapons of mass destruction is reason 479 to vote Kerry.

[Q]

2. This doesn't seem to be a very important issue...

...for many Democrats. Is this true? Or is it that this issue has been overwhelmed by worry about the other debates?

[paulk]

5. I think it's an important issue -

but it's been overshadowed by other things like Iraaq and the need to get Bush out of office. Clinton was never able to kill the missile shield completely - there is a lot of Dem. support, mostly because of the money coming in to districts or states. Now that Bush has run up the deficit, we need the money for legitimate national security issues - port security, Russian Nuke mat'l floating around, etc. Kerry outlined it pretty well at the debates. Hopefully Kerry will be able to finally kill that boondoggle once and for all.

[Q]

6. And it's clear that the Bushies aren't interested in national security...

...just the security of their oil wells in foreign lands.

- Bush* had the chance to put together a REAL 'homeland' security program...but instead chose to go on the 'offense'...throwing money at aggressive wars that harm instead of enhancing our security.

- The Bushies are crazy if they think other countries will discontinue their nuke programs when the Bush* government announces a new generation of 'usable' nuclear weapons and resumption of nuclear testing.

- Countries that had no intentions of attacking the US are now building up their nuclear weapons stashes as a means to defend themselves in the event the Bushies wage aggressive, 'preemptive' war on them.

[paulk]

11. The Bush failure in national security has put is in real danger

the threat of transnational terrorism is real - yet the Bushbots are hung up on the idea of state sponsored terrorism. Thus the war in Iraq. When Cheney smirks at Kerry over the idea of the "war on terror" being mostly a "police" action, I just want to scream. Of course it's a police action! And the Bush administration's failure to see that is frightening. We've spent 200 billion dollars (borrowed dollars!) on a war in Iraq that has made the prospects of more terror attacks worse, not better!

Everything you say is true, although I don't think oil is the main reason for what Bush has done. The Bush junta is far more concerned with war - conventional war against another state - because that's where most of the money is to be made. There just isn't as much money to be made in upgrading our port security, airline security, protecting our nuclear facilities, etc., as there is in selling the weapons of war.

[sweetheart]

3. Leading by example ROCKS!

I'm warming to Mr. Kerry. Originally, after Dennis Kucinich lost,
i felt very coerced to vote democratic, but as time has evolved,
President Kerry has really made me very proud to support him.

Kerry walks the talk.

[ParanoidPat]

4. OMG! If the US doesn't keep producing enough new nukes to destroy......

......the WORLD no one will be safe! :crazy:

:wtf: could he be thinking? :shrug:

</sarcasm> ;-)

[Ranec]

7. Is this a popular policy?

In my mind, depeleting our nuclear arsenal is a good idea. Leading by example and all. We still have the capability to do lots of damage with even one tenth our current number of bombs.

What exactly are our ICBM's for now anyway? There certainly isn't any MAD anymore. Are we waiting around for North Korea to start threatening us?

I think a lot of people some how think that this is a weak policy.
That Kerry can't shout it in the campaign because then we wouldn't be able to turn the Middle East into wasteland if we wanted.
Is there a constituency for our nuclear missile program?

[paulk]

8. the constituency is the defense industry

and they've got support on both sides of the aisle. I doubt if that influence can ever be negated, but a line should be drawn somewhere. There's no real need for the next generation of nukes other than to line a few pockets - and we do have real national security needs that aren't being met by the Bush junta.

The real threat from N. Korea isn't an attack, but that they would sell their technology to terrorists - something else the Bush admin. doesn't understand.

[K-W]

10. We only need a very small arsenal to provide for assured defense.

A handfull of missles is all we need to make sure that nobody with a population center of thier own would ever touch us.

[blm]

9. It is important, Q. I have have told people here (for 2 years)

that this was a Kerry position, but most had their fingers in their ears while repeating their antiKerry mantra "No difference between Kerry and Bush" ad nauseum.

Thanks for picking up on his remarks. They bear repeating.