There are currently more than 10,000 underground military facilities in more than 70 countries, including more than 1,000 underground facilities on both sides along the Korean Demilitarized Zone. Pentagon reports estimate that more than 1,400 underground sites are known or suspected to be sheltering weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, or military commands.


and as president, johnny wont approve the weapons to destroy them. sleep well libbys.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp

This one is beneath you Bill.

There is a reason why no Nucular (presidential spelling incase he is reading) has been used in war is because to do so means global destruction. It is not who uses them first or last that loose we all loose. In Cold War days, Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy a letter that was one of the most poignant I have ever read. As they were both veterans of WWII they knew first hand the paralysis of war and its destructive forces. He wrote (and I am paraphrasing from memory) as a response from Lemay and McNamara about winning a nuclear war and how they felt that the B-2 were so accurate that they could be used while sparing the cities. "He said my friend that you and I know that the cities will be the first to be destroyed in the event of a nuclear war." He went on to talk about one anothers children and how they could never leave such a legacy and that it was up to them to never let it happen. Kennedy, followed this with his speech to American University graduates saying that their were things the US and the USSR had in common, (again from memory) "We all inhabit this small planet, we all cherish our childrens future and we are all mortal." It was this common sense and wisdom from both sides that pulled us back from the abyss for 13 days over Cuba (not knowing at the time that battlefied tactical Nukes were operation and authority had been given to commanders not the kremlin) instead of ending the world.

In this climate we currently have 7,000 nuclear weapons still pointed us (look at McNamara's op-ed piece in the LA times a month or so ago) and we should be endeavoring to rid ourselves of most of those. As long as we remember that nukes were always about "brinksmanship" whether it be Khrushchev (who bragged about ICBMs he did not have), or Reagan, or Eisenhower (Korea) etc.

To raise this issue misses the greater point that common sense must prevail. If Terror is our enemy, going nuclear is not the answer unless we want a middle eastern parking lot.

There are currently more than 10,000 underground military facilities in more than 70 countries, including more than 1,000 underground facilities on both sides along the Korean Demilitarized Zone. Pentagon reports estimate that more than 1,400 underground sites are known or suspected to be sheltering weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, or military commands.


and as president, johnny wont approve the weapons to destroy them. sleep well libbys.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp
Any nation would be crazy to use nukes against the US right now. They would be destroyed immediately. And the proactive use of nukes by the US would be a foreign relations disaster of the highest proportion. Why do we need weapons that we shouldn't use anyway? Seems like false security to develop such a weapon and a waste of money at best. The US does not need yet another nuclear pi$$ing match.

Don't you mean nucular?

This one is beneath you Bill.

There is a reason why no Nucular (presidential spelling incase he is reading) has been used in war is because to do so means global destruction. It is not who uses them first or last that loose we all loose. In Cold War days, Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy a letter that was one of the most poignant I have ever read. As they were both veterans of WWII they knew first hand the paralysis of war and its destructive forces. He wrote (and I am paraphrasing from memory) as a response from Lemay and McNamara about winning a nuclear war and how they felt that the B-2 were so accurate that they could be used while sparing the cities. "He said my friend that you and I know that the cities will be the first to be destroyed in the event of a nuclear war." He went on to talk about one anothers children and how they could never leave such a legacy and that it was up to them to never let it happen. Kennedy, followed this with his speech to American University graduates saying that their were things the US and the USSR had in common, (again from memory) "We all inhabit this small planet, we all cherish our childrens future and we are all mortal." It was this common sense and wisdom from both sides that pulled us back from the abyss for 13 days over Cuba (not knowing at the time that battlefied tactical Nukes were operation and authority had been given to commanders not the kremlin) instead of ending the world.

In this climate we currently have 7,000 nuclear weapons still pointed us (look at McNamara's op-ed piece in the LA times a month or so ago) and we should be endeavoring to rid ourselves of most of those. As long as we remember that nukes were always about "brinksmanship" whether it be Khrushchev (who bragged about ICBMs he did not have), or Reagan, or Eisenhower (Korea) etc.

To raise this issue misses the greater point that common sense must prevail. If Terror is our enemy, going nuclear is not the answer unless we want a middle eastern parking lot.


in a last resort to destroy an enemies stockpile, command and control, leader, etc., i want the ability to make sure i can accomplish it if it saves possibly millions of u.s. lives. no, i dont see that we will need them now either. i also didnt envision 9/11 and apparently the cia didnt either. so if the cia cant imagine or piece something together does it mean it cant happen? obviously not. someone on earth will always have military superority. do you want that to be china, russia, who?

by the way, i wasnt talking about the middle east specifically. there is no telling where weapons like these could be needed. and bunker busters dont contaminate like icbm's. granted, i wont plant corn in the dirt around the crater but theyre different than some nuclear weapons.

like it or not, nuclear weapons will NEVER go away. its a matter of who do you want to have them.

[QUOTE=bill105]in a last resort to destroy an enemies stockpile, command and control, leader, etc., i want the ability to make sure i can accomplish it if it saves possibly millions of u.s. lives. QUOTE]

If we need to use them we have lost and we are already dead. It is just whether or not we wish to take the world along with us.

[QUOTE=bill105]in a last resort to destroy an enemies stockpile, command and control, leader, etc., i want the ability to make sure i can accomplish it if it saves possibly millions of u.s. lives. QUOTE]

If we need to use them we have lost and we are already dead. It is just whether or not we wish to take the world along with us.

you dont know that. you dont know what scenario would be involved given the millions of possibilities. sounds more like a wish.

you dont know that. you dont know what scenario would be involved given the millions of possibilities. sounds more like a wish.


Let me begin that this is not political as politicians of all walks of life and ideologies from Stalinism to Capitalism have looked into the abyss and come away with the knowledge that Nuclear weapons offer no answer for anyone. From every memo to every document and every memoir I have read from our leaders I am left with a wonderful feeling that this is why they were able to lead. That given the knowledge of the devastation despit having seen the blackness of some adversaries hearts they would not given into the temptation of taking the disasterous way out. Kennedy abhorred them as did his adversary Khrushchev who kept telling his scientists to learn how to grow crops not weapons as he knew that no sane man would ever use them.

The nuclear age was born of a lack of trust. By following (rightly or wrongly) the beliefs of George Kennan (Mr. X in his treatise) that the Soviet Union was beyond bargaining with, but yet through the Coldest years the thaw, detente and finally Glastnost and Peristroika it was bargaining that kept the lids to the silos closed. Kennan believed that the USSR was rotten at its core and would collapse upon itself and he was correct in that assumption what he could fathom at the time that upon the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union no longer looked at war as an inevitability and cherished life as we did.

In retrospect the arms race left one civilization in ruins (thankfully) but also greatly weakened us as well. Economically, we became a debter nation, philisophically we became the bully on the block. No longer looked at as the lesser of two evils we face the brunt that in many ways we lack the fortitude and economics to face head on.

So believe if you must that a nuclear solution is a possibility, but also no this not one leader of the United States from Eisenhower on holds your view with any respect because they know the results all too well.

Let me begin that this is not political as politicians of all walks of life and ideologies from Stalinism to Capitalism have looked into the abyss and come away with the knowledge that Nuclear weapons offer no answer for anyone. From every memo to every document and every memoir I have read from our leaders I am left with a wonderful feeling that this is why they were able to lead. That given the knowledge of the devastation despit having seen the blackness of some adversaries hearts they would not given into the temptation of taking the disasterous way out. Kennedy abhorred them as did his adversary Khrushchev who kept telling his scientists to learn how to grow crops not weapons as he knew that no sane man would ever use them.

The nuclear age was born of a lack of trust. By following (rightly or wrongly) the beliefs of George Kennan (Mr. X in his treatise) that the Soviet Union was beyond bargaining with, but yet through the Coldest years the thaw, detente and finally Glastnost and Peristroika it was bargaining that kept the lids to the silos closed. Kennan believed that the USSR was rotten at its core and would collapse upon itself and he was correct in that assumption what he could fathom at the time that upon the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union no longer looked at war as an inevitability and cherished life as we did.

In retrospect the arms race left one civilization in ruins (thankfully) but also greatly weakened us as well. Economically, we became a debter nation, philisophically we became the bully on the block. No longer looked at as the lesser of two evils we face the brunt that in many ways we lack the fortitude and economics to face head on.

So believe if you must that a nuclear solution is a possibility, but also no this not one leader of the United States from Eisenhower on holds your view with any respect because they know the results all too well.

truman saw them end a war. since then with more nations acquiring nuclear weapons, you'd have to be a pacifist to do away with them. thank God no president since eisenhower has been a pacifist either or we might not be discussing it.

No, it's Noooooukular, silly

truman saw them end a war. since then with more nations acquiring nuclear weapons, you'd have to be a pacifist to do away with them. thank God no president since eisenhower has been a pacifist either or we might not be discussing it.
I don't think the answer is to get rid of them, but I don't see the point in building them up any more than we already have.

truman saw them end a war. since then with more nations acquiring nuclear weapons, you'd have to be a pacifist to do away with them. thank God no president since eisenhower has been a pacifist either or we might not be discussing it.

Truman saw "Atomic" weapons end a war. That weapon was a flair compared to our ICBMs with MIRVs that can assault on a global scale with thousands the times of affliction. Having seen the footage from Nagasaki and Hiroshima that alone is enough to make the world afraid.

To call Eisenhower a pacifist two days before the 60th anniversary of the D-day landing is one of the most upsurd things I believe I have ever heard in my entire existence on this green earth. Actually, Eisenhower was the first president to do what so many have tried and failed to do. Use covert operations on the cheap to exact change. Mossadadq in 1953 in Iran, Arbenz in Guatamala in 54-55, his taking the side of Egypt (a Soviet protectorate) to show the allies who ran the show in 57. Ending the Korean war knowing that 800,000 chinese troops over the yalu was just the tip of the iceberg and also knowing that South Korea amounted to the beachhead that he wished he had in Europe less than a decade before. For Eisenhower he had achieved his appointed goal with Korea. Like at his protection of Tiawan saying if China wanted to come over Formosa that would be fine but they would have to run over the seventh fleet to do so. So pacifism is not what I would call Ike. (Incidentally in an interview he blew up at a reporter over the botched Bay of Pigs a covert action that had begun to be planned at the end of his tenure) Saying he would have never let Castro have Cuba long term (very profanity laced I might add).

Remember Reagon and Gorbachev in Iceland, in that meeting Reykjavik Gorbachev put all Nukes on the table and the Reagan administration thought about it but was beholden to the Star Wars missile defense and the deal fell apart. How close did we come? Would you feel differently if it had been Reagan that ended nuclear arms?

From a Reagan Letter. " We proposed the most sweeping and generous arms control proposal in history. We offered the complete elimination of all ballistic missiles--soviet and american--from the face of the Earth by 1996. We are closer than ever before to agreements that could lead to a safer world without nuclear weapons...

Again let me quote from a letter from Khrushchev to Kennedy about the disaster that would befall them (thoughts of Lincoln inaugural spring to mind.) ""If you did this as the first step in unleashing of war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge of yours. If, however, you have not lost your self control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to then Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the know of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighteer that knot will be tied. and a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that know. and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose."

why did he say this, because only he knew that if the U.S invaded Cuba the field commanders would launch a nuclear attack. It was up to him to walk down from the precipice.

Truman saw "Atomic" weapons end a war. That weapon was a flair compared to our ICBMs with MIRVs that can assault on a global scale with thousands the times of affliction. Having seen the footage from Nagasaki and Hiroshima that alone is enough to make the world afraid.

To call Eisenhower a pacifist two days before the 60th anniversary of the D-day landing is one of the most upsurd things I believe I have ever heard in my entire existence on this green earth. Actually, Eisenhower was the first president to do what so many have tried and failed to do. Use covert operations on the cheap to exact change. Mossadadq in 1953 in Iran, Arbenz in Guatamala in 54-55, his taking the side of Egypt (a Soviet protectorate) to show the allies who ran the show in 57. Ending the Korean war knowing that 800,000 chinese troops over the yalu was just the tip of the iceberg and also knowing that South Korea amounted to the beachhead that he wished he had in Europe less than a decade before. For Eisenhower he had achieved his appointed goal with Korea. Like at his protection of Tiawan saying if China wanted to come over Formosa that would be fine but they would have to run over the seventh fleet to do so. So pacifism is not what I would call Ike. (Incidentally in an interview he blew up at a reporter over the botched Bay of Pigs a covert action that had begun to be planned at the end of his tenure) Saying he would have never let Castro have Cuba long term (very profanity laced I might add).

Remember Reagon and Gorbachev in Iceland, in that meeting Reykjavik Gorbachev put all Nukes on the table and the Reagan administration thought about it but was beholden to the Star Wars missile defense and the deal fell apart. How close did we come? Would you feel differently if it had been Reagan that ended nuclear arms?

From a Reagan Letter. " We proposed the most sweeping and generous arms control proposal in history. We offered the complete elimination of all ballistic missiles--soviet and american--from the face of the Earth by 1996. We are closer than ever before to agreements that could lead to a safer world without nuclear weapons...

Again let me quote from a letter from Khrushchev to Kennedy about the disaster that would befall them (thoughts of Lincoln inaugural spring to mind.) ""If you did this as the first step in unleashing of war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge of yours. If, however, you have not lost your self control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to then Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the know of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighteer that knot will be tied. and a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that know. and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose."

why did he say this, because only he knew that if the U.S invaded Cuba the field commanders would launch a nuclear attack. It was up to him to walk down from the precipice.

you used the time frame "since eisenhower". i didnt call eisenhower a pacifist. i framed the agrument to coincide with the time frame you chose. the fact remains, some nation will be the worlds superpower. the question is, who do you want and trust that to be? the genie is out, we have to deal with it.

you used the time frame "since eisenhower". i didnt call eisenhower a pacifist. i framed the agrument to coincide with the time frame you chose. the fact remains, some nation will be the worlds superpower. the question is, who do you want and trust that to be? the genie is out, we have to deal with it.

Sorry your sentence seemed confusing by, "since" you meant including I thought you meant since, as exclusionary, as in everyone (since that pacifist) Eisenhower.

The difference is to hold the two forms of nuclear dangers differently. History at least has shown that States under the recognition of destruction will not use the weapons. The other threat is more opaque. The terrorist without a state or a conscience getting a hold of one of them. There limiting the proliferation is the key.

I don't think the answer is to get rid of them, but I don't see the point in building them up any more than we already have.


i think we have more than enough as well. but they do have a shelf life and need upgrading/maintenence. i am all for whatever makes them smaller, less contaminating and more effective.

With the previous administration lobbing two missles at Osama
and having a memo "Osama determined to attack within the US"
placed on Bush's desk, why speculate on Kerry's competence?

With the previous administration lobbing two missles at Osama
and having a memo "Osama determined to attack within the US"
placed on Bush's desk, why speculate on Kerry's competence?

because he makes himself suspect spouting off when he is clearly wrong just because he wants to come down on both sides of an issue.

he wants to come down on both sides of an issue.
"compassionate conservatism"?

Wow using a right wing pro-republican website to furtehr your views. Next you'll be quoting the KKK on race relations? When you use an (some-what) objective source then maybe I'll listen.