June 2, 2004 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
Robert Moran, writing at National Review Online, documents a few of the many times presidential candidate John Kerry has opposed missile defense. His recent speech saying that the United States must do everything it can to prevent nuclear terrorism will be a tough sell, given his record.
Also worth noting, however, is that John Kerry has devoted some considerable time to the subject of missile defense, and making sure the United States does not deploy one. On May 1, 2001, President Bush gave one of his most important speeches on missile defense, outlining why the United States should, and would, withdraw from the outdated ABM Treaty of 1972, which made missile defense illegal. On the very next day, Kerry responded with a long and articulate response, about the need to preserve the ABM Treaty. The long and short of it was the need to preserve mutually assured destruction.
Moran is right, however, to note that even here, Kerry expresses his characteristic equivocation. After repeating his mantra that on defense he would be second-to-none, Kerry said the following:
The President stressed that we must move away from our reliance on deterrence to keep our citizens and our allies safe from aggression or nuclear blackmail. I agree.
In the very next paragraph, he goes on to argue why missile defense is not the answer, and continues to argue that the logic of mutually assured destruction must be retained:
“And given that that no missile defense system will be 100% effective, we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years.”
That is, we must not abandon the logic of complete vulnerability to ballistic missile launches from Russia and China. Kerry agrees with Bush upon the ends, the need to provide for the defense of the people. But he completely disagrees that actual, physical, defenses are the means to achieve that end. Rather, vulnerability is the proper means to achieve security.
While Kerry seems to say that he agrees with the president that we must “move away” from MAD, the more important element here is his refusal to “set aside” such a policy. Kerry, like Clinton before him, gives token support to theatre missile defenses—systems which cannot defend the U.S. territory and population from strategic missiles, those which pose the most substantial threat. But behind this equivocation lies the simple fact that he has no intention of deploying any such defense.
(Article)» May 1, 2001: President Bush at National Defense University
» May 2, 2001: John Kerry’s response to Bush
» Other major speeches on missile defense
» More stories on: ABM Treaty, Analysis, Policy
