Topics in the News: SDI Missile Defense
Joe Biden on Homeland Security
: Oct 30, 2007
Talks about nations acquiring uranium are more complicated
Q: Would you pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?A: I would pledge to keep us safe. This is complicated stuff. We talk about this in isolation. The Iranians may get 2.6 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium. But the
Pakistanis have thousands of kilograms of highly-enriched uranium. If by attacking Iran to stop them from getting 2.6 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium, the government in Pakistan falls, who has missiles already deployed with nuclear weapons on them
that can already reach Israel, already reach India, then that's a bad bargain. Presidents make wise decisions informed not by a vacuum in which they operate, by the situation they find themselves in the world. I will do all in my power to stop
Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but I will never take my eye off the ball. What is the greatest threat to the US: 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Tehran or an out-of-control Pakistan? It's not close.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Bill Richardson on Homeland Security
: Oct 26, 2007
Ignoring Nuclear Test Ban creates world distrust
The Bush administration tossed aside the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Our message to the world: We can be trusted to create any kind of weapon of mass destruction we want. Most of the world,
I believe, trusts the US to manage its nuclear arsenal carefully and responsibly, and they are resigned to the fact that we will control a large arsenal of highly destructive weapons.
Yet they also want us to abide by accepted rules for testing, for development of new weapons, for balancing our strength against other nations'. When we step out of standing agreements, and begin developing new weapons on our own, the world loses faith.
Why are we the arbiter of who can own or design weapons of mass destruction? People who don't trust the US can't answer that question.
Click for Bill Richardson on other issues.
Source: Leading by Example, by Bill Richardson, p. 73
Fred Thompson on Homeland Security
: Sep 20, 2007
Supports missile defense system & enhanced intelligence
Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it. I am committed to:- A larger, more capable, and more modern military
- A missile defense system that can protect the US and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles
- An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation
-
A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from
- A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators,
and traditional threats to our interests
- A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.
Click for Fred Thompson on other issues.
Source: Campaign website, www.Fred08.com, "Issues"
Chris Dodd on Homeland Security
: Aug 8, 2007
Star Wars program is wrong priority for 21st century
Spending $12 billion every month in Iraq has got to stop if we're going to have a different set of priorities in our country. We need to look at our defense systems and decide which defense systems we need in order to face the threats that we face in the
21st century. Looking at some of these programs out there, such as the Star Wars program--the missile defense system--I think, frankly, we need a different set of priorities.
Click for Chris Dodd on other issues.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum
Duncan Hunter on War & Peace
: Aug 5, 2007
Marines are doing a good job; don't rush for the exit
Q: What would be your strategy for ending the war in Iraq?A: I've been here before. I was here when we stood up to the Russians in Central Europe when they were ringing our allies with SS-20 missiles. We stood up them and we finally brought that wall
down. I was here when we did Central America, when the liberals were raging that we had to get out of Salvador. Today, Salvadoran troops are standing side-by-side with Americans in Iraq.
I watched the Democrat debate. I watched them say, as [Rep. Ron
Paul] has said, "Just bring them home." And it was a race to see who could stampede for the exit the quickest. None said, "Good job." But the Marines in Anbar province have turned that situation around. They brought the communities there on our side,
fighting back against Al Qaida.
We are standing up the Iraq military. When the 129 battalions are stood up, when they're reliable & battle-ready, they can displace American heavy combat forces. That's the right way to leave, not a stampede for the exit
Click for Duncan Hunter on other issues.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate
Fred Thompson on Homeland Security
: Aug 3, 2007
Al Qaeda intends to put a mushroom cloud over a US city
Al Qaeda is already here, they're intent, patient, and intend to put a mushroom cloud over an American city no matter how long it takes. That's the kind of world we're going to wake up to after Iraq is way in our rear view mirror. We're going to find
China & Russia both with military build ups. We're going to see a China with hundreds of missiles pointed towards Taiwan, a country we pledge to defend. We're seeing both of those countries playing dangerous, aggressive international energy politics all
over the world. In turn we see our Allies & NATO spending less and less on their own militaries to even defend themselves. So I ask you, even though we won't be going around in the woods trying to find any bears to kill, sometimes the bear visits you
whether you're looking for it or not. And when that time comes, and hopefully civilization will realize they're fighting the forces of destruction and darkness. Who is going to stand firm and stand strong and stand united, if it's not the USA?
Click for Fred Thompson on other issues.
Source: Address at the Lincoln Club 45th Annual Dinner
Joe Biden on Homeland Security
: Jul 31, 2007
Missile defense is perfect metaphor for neo-isolationism
In 2001, Bush's new foreign affairs team were so intent on going ahead with Reagan's Star Wars missile defense shield that they were willing to pull out of earlier arms control treaties to get there, inviting, in my view, another arms race.
The missile defense system seemed to be the perfect metaphor for the neoisolationist policy. Let's arm the heavens, they were saying, and protect the US, the rest of the world be damned.
The administration had said they were willing to walk away from the decades-old ABM Treaty in order to unilaterally develop and deploy the missile defense system, and now they were putting real money behind it. They were willing to put tens of billions
of dollars into the Maginot line in the sky that could quite likely set off another arms race, while cutting funding for a program to help Russia destroy its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons before they got into the hands of terrorists.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: Promises to Keep, by Joe Biden, p.291-292&298
Rudy Giuliani on War & Peace
: Jun 5, 2007
Iran's danger is handing nukes over to terrorists
Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. The problem the Democrats make is they're in denial. That's why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isn't dangerous; it's 10 years away from nuclear weapons.
Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light, and we have to be successful in Iraq.
Click for Rudy Giuliani on other issues.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College
Joe Biden on War & Peace
: Jun 3, 2007
Do away with the policy of regime change for Iran
I would do away with the policy of regime change. What we're saying to everybody in Iran is, "Look, by the way, give up the one thing that keeps us from attacking you, & after that we're going to attack you. We're going to take you down." It's a bizarre
notion, number one. Number two, understand how weak Iran is. They are not a year away or two years away. They're a decade away from being able to weaponize exactly what the question was, if they put a nuclear weapon on top of a missile that can strike.
They're far away from that. Number three, we're going to - we have to understand how weak that government is. They import almost all of their refined oil. By 2014, they're going to be importing their crude oil.
There's much better ways, if we had to get to the point of being real sanctions, of doing economic sanctions on them forcefully that way. But at the end of the day, if they posed the missile, stuck it on a pad, I'd take it out.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
John McCain on Homeland Security
: Nov 1, 2004
Eliminate defense pork, but increase most other defense
Indicate your priorities for defense spending: - Greatly Increase: Intelligence operations; Pay for active duty personnel; Programs to improve troop retention rates; Troop and equipment readiness
- Slightly Increase: Armed
Forces personnel training; Military hardware; Modernization of weaponry and equipment; National missile defense; Research and development of new weapons
- Eliminate: Defense pork barrel projects
Click for John McCain on other issues.
Source: Congressional 2004 National Political Awareness Test
Dennis Kucinich on Homeland Security
: Jan 4, 2004
Weapons in outer space and missile shields are DOD waste
Q: How do you insure national security if you cut the defense budget by 15%?KUCINICH: I'm the ranking Democrat on a Department of Defense investigative subcommittee. I know the kind of waste that goes on there. There's waste when you talk
about building weapons in outer space; waste when you talk about building new nuclear weapons; waste when you talk about building a missile shield that even those who have studied it know that there's been fraud involved in the development of it.
Click for Dennis Kucinich on other issues.
Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa
Dennis Kucinich on Homeland Security
: Aug 1, 2003
Terminating ABM treaty was unconstitutional
Kucinich filed a lawsuit in federal district court to block the President from withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.
The President's termination of the ABM Treaty represents an unconstitutional repeal of a law duly enacted by Congress.
Click for Dennis Kucinich on other issues.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues"
Dennis Kucinich on Homeland Security
: Aug 1, 2003
Abide by Non-Proliferation, ABM, and Test Ban Treaties
We must abide by the principles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, stop the development of new nuclear weapons, take all nuclear weapons systems off alert, and persist towards total, worldwide elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Our nation must revive the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, sign and enforce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, abandon plans to build a so-called missile shield, and prohibit the introduction of weapons into outer space.
Click for Dennis Kucinich on other issues.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues"
Bill Richardson on Homeland Security
: Oct 24, 2002
Spend $250K annually to fight base closures
I want to talk with you about a very important issue that is on the horizon. I am talking about our military bases - Kirtland, Cannon, Holloman, and White Sands Missile Range. Washington is planning another round of base closures in 2005
and we need to be ready. We must stand up to protect our four military bases, and the thousands of jobs they provide. Over 24,000 military and civilian personnel-plus thousands of contractor employees-work at these bases.
Their economic impact to the state is over $5 billion dollars. I will request an annual appropriation of up to $250,000 through 2005 [to fight] the threat of base closures.
My record shows that I have always supported a strong national defense. And I've always fought to protect New Mexico's bases. I have voted for military pay raises, better housing, and improvements to all our bases in New Mexico.
Click for Bill Richardson on other issues.
Source: Campaign web site, RichardsonForGovernor.com, "Priorities"
Hillary Clinton on Homeland Security
: Oct 20, 2000
Supports funding research on missile defense
Hillary Clinton said she would vote for a nuclear test ban treaty and to fund research for a missile defense system, she said.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: Dean Murphy, NY Times
Al Gore on Homeland Security
: Jul 10, 2000
Full-scale “Star Wars” is unrealistic & too expensive
I favor an effort to develop a limited missile defense system and not a massive “star wars” system because our country will probably face a new threat later in this decade from a small arsenal of relatively unsophisticated ICBMs in the hands of a rogue
state. [Bush’s proposed] much larger, space-based star wars approach is far more difficult to design and build, far more expensive to purchase, less likely to work, and is calculated to destroy existing arms control arrangements with the Russians.
Click for Al Gore on other issues.
Source: Transcript of Gore interview
Al Gore on Homeland Security
: May 28, 2000
Nuclear unilateralism will hinder arms control
Gore criticized Bush’s support for a national missile defense system along with a possible one-sided reduction in American nuclear warheads. “An approach that combines serious unilateral reductions with an attempt to build a massive defensive system will
create instability and thus undermine our security,” Gore said. “Nuclear unilateralism will hinder, rather than help, arms control.” Again and again, Gore assailed the notion of one-sided arms reductions, a prospect that Bush had raised [last week].
Gore emphasized that reductions should be pursued within negotiations and the framework of existing arms control treaties. Gore said that the Clinton administration was already negotiating for bilateral cuts in nuclear arms and was considering a
limited missile defense, but said the kind of approach recommended by Bush was misguided. “Reductions alone do not guarantee stability,” Gore said. “If you’re not careful, you could have a reduction of missiles and a more dangerous world.”
Click for Al Gore on other issues.
Source: Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times
Al Gore on Homeland Security
: May 27, 2000
Focus SDI on rogue states
We need to continue on a course of deeper reductions [in nuclear weapons]. But it is critical that we have the right approach in doing so. We are urging the Russians to tighten cooperation with us to protect nuclear weapons materials and
stop the transfer of ballistic missile and nuclear weapons technology to rogue states. It is these states that represent the emerging threat to our country.The administration has been working on the technology for a national missile defense system
designed to protect all 50 states from a limited attack at the hands of a rogue state. We believe, however, that it is essential to do this in a way that does not destroy the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The national missile defense system that the
president will review this summer is intended to meet threats from proliferant states like North Korea while preserving strategic stability.
Click for Al Gore on other issues.
Source: Speech at West Point Military Academy
Al Gore on Homeland Security
: May 27, 2000
Build less powerful SDI; to keep ABM treaty & START III
We believe that it is essential to [build a missile defense system] in a way that does not destroy the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of strategic stability in our relationship with Russia. It prevents the Russians or
ourselves from deploying defenses powerful enough-assuming anyone can solve the engineering problems-to neutralize the deterrent of either side. The Russians have made clear that their response to a powerful US defensive system would be to halt arms
control and increase the number of their offensive nuclear weapons.The ABM Treaty is a prerequisite for the deeper reductions in nuclear arms that we are seeking in START III, which is under discussion with the Russians as we speak. [Further missile
reductions] are possible only through careful negotiation. [SDI defending against rogue states] can co-exist with the ABM Treaty, if that treaty is adjusted. It can be compatible with further arms reductions.
Click for Al Gore on other issues.
Source: Speech at West Point Military Academy
Al Gore on Homeland Security
: Feb 3, 2000
Sensible increases in defense spending
Background: The US government spends about 16% of its budget on defense, down from about 50% in the early 1960s. The number of active-duty troops has dropped by about one third since the end of the Cold War. Gore’s views::
Wants unspecified “sensible” increase in defense spending. Has helped negotiate arms reduction and nuclear stability arrangements. As senator, voted for SDI and B-2s. Supported military force in Persian Gulf War and the nuclear test ban treaty.
Click for Al Gore on other issues.
Source: NyTimes.com Politics Library
John McCain on Homeland Security
: Apr 30, 1999
Discard ABM Treaty and develop a missile defense
A massive nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union is no longer our central preoccupation. The threat is much more diverse, and more difficult to deter. We urgently need a practical ballistic missile defense, and the ABM Treaty is for the
moment blocking us from obtaining it. [We should develop] a defense against terrorists and rogue states that will benefit all nations. Let us praise the good intentions that created the ABM Treaty, then consign it to the history pages where it belongs.
Click for John McCain on other issues.
Source: www.mccain2000.com/ “Position Papers” 4/30/99
Bill Richardson on Homeland Security
: Nov 1, 1996
Eliminate funding for SDI
Indicate what changes you support regarding funding for the following categories. - Slightly Decrease CIA appropriations
- Slightly Decrease Defense plant conversion
- Slightly Decrease Military hardware
-
Slightly Decrease Military space shuttle missions
- Slightly Decrease Development of new weapons
- Eliminate Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)
- Slightly Increase Armed Forces personnel training
Click for Bill Richardson on other issues.
Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test