Kerry: is this true?

[Sixpence]

http://www.cfrterrorism.org/weapons/loosenukes.html

He would probably have sent them money, but who knows how they would have spent it. They have already asked for money to clean up their WMD, which are even less secure.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by GreenCloud
yes Hanoi Kerry said all kinds of BS..what can you expect from a guy who commits TREASON against his country..then tells you hes the best thing for us..

Has kerry been convicted of treason?  Or even charged with it?  I dont like Kerry any more than I dont like Bush, but I wasnt aware he was courtmarshalled for treason?  Why wasnt this brought out?

[parker00]

I have read in one Russian newsgroup that during his campaign mr. Kerry said that after he'll be elected he'll "secure" all Russian nuclear weapons by "international forces".

He was talking about the same thing bush is doing over the next 10-20 years, he is just wanting to do it in the next 4. If he could of, who knows or cares now. Just funny how all these replies and not one of them that touches the surface of what he was really talking about.


68Parker

EDIT- I know he never said anything about using force to do it.

[Boroda]

Well, translating anything you can easily change the intonation without altering the meaning.

Trying to translate the exact phrase as I read it: Kerry said he'll achieve that Russian nuclear wea[ons will be under control of international forces in 4 years.

I find it amazing. Making such statements is definetly an improper thing for an international politician. Russian military doctrine is based on using nuclear weapons against agressors, so this statement is a direct threat to independance and integrity of Russian Federation.

OTOH with our beautiful regime I'll not be surrprised if they'll sell all our nuclear weapons to the Big Brother, and even maybe sell all Russian population as slaves. They already sold all Russian stock of weapon-grade Plutonium to the US for some ridiculous sum of money... The whole country worked their tulips off, and they sold it...

I want to assure you: Russian nuclear weapons are safe. This is one of the things that's important enough to keep it according to Soviet standards. Don't forget that this nukes, if in hands of terrorists, will be used against Russian cities first.

All the money that US sends here as "assistance" in disarmament go to the US companies, and almost nothing goes to actual programms. Anyway, most of the "assistance" is on paper only, this money are planned but not actually given away.

[NUKE]

I think Kerry was talking about the nuclear weapons dismanteled under agreement. He didn't say they'd be under US control IIRC, but rather secured and properly desposed of. The US had promised money for this and I'm not sure we have delivered.

Basing this on my memory, but that's sort of the jist of what Kerry was talking about.

[Flit]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Has kerry been convicted of treason?  Or even charged with it?  I dont like Kerry any more than I dont like Bush, but I wasnt aware he was courtmarshalled for treason?  Why wasnt this brought out?

Thats why he won't sign his 108
 He should'nt even be holding public office:D

[Boroda]

Originally posted by GScholz
I read it as Kerry wanting to help you secure your vast arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Not that he wanted control over them. Kind of like we helping you secure and clean up all those rusting nuke-sub hulks you've got up north. Mostly through funding your efforts.

So far most of the promises to fund the disposal of old nuclear submarines are only on paper. They declare that they decided to fund submarine scrapping, then everybody is happy and applauding Great American Charity, political goal achieved -> nothing more to worry about, so the money isn't spent...

Tactical nukes are as secure as any other nuclear weapon. The security regime is absolutely paranoid.

[NUKE]

We are talking about Kerry....a guy willing to lie, do, or say anything to get elected.

I miss him.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by GScholz
Really? Where are those suitcase bombs that were unaccounted for over a year ago? How many nuclear artillery shells (even tank shells!) did the USSR have when it fell in 1991, and how many are there now? These are questions no one seem able or willing to answer.

tank nuclear shells? You overestimate Soviet technology Disarmament treaties limit the numbers of 152/155mm+ artillery systems because it was the smallest caliber capable of shooting nuclear shells.

Suitcase bombs? ? I guess noone saw them. This things must be especially well-guarded. These are strategic weapons, not tactical (battlefield).

I had some relations with tactical nukes, not in real life, thank god, but in college where my military speciality was SAM technical division officer. S-200 was capable of shooting 20kiloton warheads, and there was a special storage facilities for nuclear warheads. You couldn't even think of entering it.

My colleague served in Arzamas-16 nuclear research and production center, in Internal Troops special transportation corps. He can tell you many things about how the nuclear security works. It's absolutely paranoid.

[Eagler]

"For two years, the president didn't even engage with North Korea, did nothing at all, while it was growing more dangerous, despite the warnings of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who negotiated getting television cameras and inspectors into that reactor.

We were safer before President Bush came to office. Now they have the bombs and we're less safe.

So what do we do? We've got to join with the British and the French, with the Germans, who've been involved, in their initiative. We've got to lead the world now to crack down on proliferation as a whole.

But the president's been slow to do that, even in Russia.

At his pace, it's going to take 13 years to reduce and get ahold of all the loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. I've proposed a plan that can capture it and contain it and clean it within four years."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/08/politics/main648309.shtml

the "war hero" was saying everything to everybody hoping enough would stick to get him in where he'd done about 10% of what he promised fro about 5% of those who voted him in... luckily almost 4,000,000 more ppl did not believe him than did...

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Boroda
I have read in one Russian newsgroup that during his campaign mr. Kerry said that after he'll be elected he'll "secure" all Russian nuclear weapons by "international forces".

Kerry wasn't planning to change basic American policy, which is to give aid and assistance to Russia to help them secure their weapons.  

That has been America's policy for over a decade - Clinton and Bush -  because we are concerned that Russia and the former Soviet states might not have their act together.  

Kerry never said anything about putting 'international forces' in Russia.