Kerry Against Bunker Buster Bombs

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Kerry Against Bunker Buster Bombs
3
Sat, 10-02-2004 - 12:51pm

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004622.html


As U.S. Navy Rear Admiral John T. Byrd, Director of Plans and Policy for the United States Strategic Command, testified on June 12, 2002, before the House Armed Services Committee's procurement subcommittee:

One of the most pressing threats posed by our potential adversaries in the international arena today is the proliferation of hard and deeply buried facilities capable of protecting nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; the means of delivering them; and the leaders who would threaten the United States. Our current arsenal, developed in the Cold War, was not designed to address this growing worldwide threat. There are facilities today which we either cannot defeat, even with existing nuclear weapons, or must hold at risk using a large number of weapons. As a result, both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, through the Nuclear Weapons Council, have approved a study of how to effectively counter this threat. This study of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) will evaluate modifications to existing nuclear weapons that do not require nuclear testing.


The ideal outcome of an RNEP study would be a recommendation to proceed with selective modifications to existing weapons that would ultimately strengthen deterrence by improving the credibility of our strategic forces against hard and deeply buried facilities. As you are well aware, our efforts to strengthen deterrence involve denying sanctuary to our adversaries. This may mean making our nuclear weapons more tailored to the target type, which is not equivalent to making them more likely to be used. Tailored weapons strengthen deterrence, which in turn makes them less likely to be used. Also, a robust nuclear earth penetrator is only one piece of the overall solution for targets contained in these types of structures. Other capabilities such as advanced conventional, information operations, and special operations capabilities must be developed as well. A full spectrum of capabilities strengthens deterrence and maintains the nuclear threshold by developing a range of options for the President to counter the growing hard and deeply buried target set.


It only makes perfect sense that having the ability to destroy such weapons caches and weapons facilities of rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea would make America safer. We don't currently have that capability. And yet John Kerry doesn't want us to have it.



John Kerry thinks nuclear proliferation - not terrorism - is the greatest security threat facing America. He said so last night. He said President Bush hasn't shown leadership on that issue.

And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.


Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation.


John Kerry thinks America having nuclear weapons is akin to terrorists and rogue regimes having them. Think about it. To Kerry, the danger is the bomb itself, not the motives and agendas of the government that is holding it. Thus, a succession of American presidents commanding an arsenal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a Soviet missile attack were morally equivalent to the Mad Mullahs of Tehran who have been threatening to obliterate Israel just as soon as they get a nuke.



The truth is, John Kerry's opposition to nuclear bunker busters would make America less safe if he is elected and able to kill the program. But it is entirely consistent with Kerry's anti-military ideology.


Just as he now opposes development of a weapons system that could be crucial to defending America against a WMD attack by terrorists or a rogue regime, two decades ago he was fighting to cancel a series of weapons systems ranging from state-of-the-art combat aircraft to defensive missile systems to battlefield weapons that, all, are being used today by today's American military to wage the War On Terror.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Sat, 10-02-2004 - 12:58pm
<>

Bush agreed with him that nuclear proliferation was the greatest security threat facing the US, so I'm not sure what point this article is trying to make with regard to this. . .

BUSH: Actually, we've increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the president. Secondly, we've set up what's called the -- well, first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. And that's why proliferation is one of the centerpieces of a multiprong strategy to make the country safer.

My administration started what's called the Proliferation Security Initiative. Over 60 nations involved with disrupting the trans-shipment of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials.

And we've been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya. We convinced Libya to disarm.

It's a central part of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.

I'll tell you another way to help protect America in the long run is to continue with missile defenses. And we've got a robust research and development program that has been ongoing during my administration. We'll be implementing a missile-defense system relatively quickly.

And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century.

My opponent opposed the missile defenses.

We must have China's leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves. And if you enter bilateral talks, they'll be happy to walk away from the table. I don't think that'll work.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Sat, 10-02-2004 - 1:06pm
I'm all for Kerry on this. We don't need the stupid things... see any other countries with them?
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Sat, 10-02-2004 - 3:38pm
>>>John Kerry thinks nuclear proliferation - not terrorism - is the greatest security threat facing America. He said so last night.<<<

Bush agreed with him.

And why is this hack trying to make this into a wedge issue?

Nuclear proliferation and terrorism are inextricably linked.

The ultimate terrorist attack would be a nuclear attack.

Working against nuclear proliferation is working against nuclear terrorism.