issues2000

Topics in the News: Nuclear Energy & Weapons


Peter King on Energy & Oil : Sep 9, 2013
Energy tax credits for alternative and renewable energy

The oil market is globally integrated and global consumption is at an all time high. Accordingly, the cost of imported oil has not only risen, but continues to be subject to large fluctuations due to developments in the Middle East and elsewhere.

We should increase conservation, encourage nuclear energy in areas of the country that do not have evacuation concerns, and pursue alternative forms of energy such as wind, solar, hydropower and bio-fuel. I have a long standing record of supporting energy tax credits for individuals and businesses investing in alternative and renewable energy, including for expansion of natural gas vehicles and refueling infrastructure. Natural gas is a cleaner alternative to diesel fuel that is plentiful in the United States. Expanding our use of natural gas is a win-win situation that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, helps consumers save money, and creates jobs.

Click for Peter King on other issues.   Source: Congressional website, peteking.house.gov, "Issues"

Peter King on War & Peace : Sep 9, 2013
We cannot allow Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons

Iran poses a grave threat not only to Israel and the Middle East, but also to the US and the entire world. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terror and continues to violate United Nations Security Council Resolutions in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. That is something we cannot allow. Strong economic sanctions on Iran have been enacted with my strong support. We must take decisive action against this dangerous regime and keep all options on the table. I have endorsed:
Click for Peter King on other issues.   Source: Congressional website, peteking.house.gov, "Issues"

Joe Biden on Foreign Policy : Mar 4, 2013
Arab Spring changed Mideast; commitment to Israel unchanged

The Arab Spring, at once full of both hope and uncertainty, has required Israel--and the United States--to reassess old and settled relationships. Iran's dangerous nuclear weapons program, and its continued support of terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas, not only endanger Israel, but endanger the world.

All these pressures put enormous pressure on the State of Israel. We understand that. And we especially understand that if we make a mistake, it's not a threat to our existence. But if Israel makes a mistake, it could be a threat to its very existence. And that's why, from the moment the President took office, he has acted swiftly and decisively to make clear to the whole world and to Israel that even as circumstances have changed, one thing has not: our deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel. That has not changed. That will not change as long as I and he are President and Vice President. It's in our naked self-interest, beyond the moral imperative.

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: Speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference

Mitt Romney on War & Peace : Oct 22, 2012
Dissuade Iran from nukes by peaceful means, like sanctions

OBAMA: As long as I'm president, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security.

ROMNEY: There's no question but that a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable to America. It presents ultimately a threat to us to have Iran have nuclear material or nuclear weapons. It's also essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran, and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful & diplomatic means. And crippling sanctions are something I'd called for five years ago. I laid out seven steps. Crippling sanctions were #1. And they do work. You're seeing it right now in the economy. It's absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions. I'd have put them in place earlier, but it's good that we have them. #2, something I would add today is I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil can't come into our ports. And I'd take on diplomatic isolation efforts.

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate

Mitt Romney on War & Peace : Oct 22, 2012
Paksitani Pashtuns will rush to Afghan Taliban when we leave

Q: Pakistan still provides safe haven for terrorists, yet we continue to give Pakistan billions of dollars. Is it time for us to divorce Pakistan?

ROMNEY: No, it's not time to divorce a nation on earth that has a hundred nuclear weapons. This is an important part of the world for us. Pakistan is technically an ally, and they're not acting very much like an ally right now, but we have some work to do. I don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with Pakistan is strained. We had to go into Pakistan; we had to go in there to get Osama bin Laden. That was the right thing to do. And that upset them, but there was obviously a great deal of anger even before that. Pakistan is important for the success of Afghanistan, because inside Pakistan you have a large group of Pashtuns that are Taliban, that they're going to come rushing back into Afghanistan when we go. And that's one of the reasons the Afghan security forces have so much work to do to be able to fight against that.

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate

Paul Ryan on War & Peace : Oct 11, 2012
Nuclear Iran is worse than war

BIDEN: There is no nuclear weapon that the Iranians have at this point. What are they talking about? Unless he's talking about going to war.

RYAN: Let's look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. They see this administration trying to water down sanctions in Congress for over two years. They're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon; they're spinning the centrifuges faster. We have to change their mind so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and they're going faster.

Q: What's worse: another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran?

RYAN: I'll tell you what's worse. A nuclear-armed Iran, which triggers a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. They've dedicated themselves to wiping an entire country off the map. They call us the Great Satan. And if they get nuclear weapons, other people in the neighborhood will pursue their nuclear weapons as well. We can't live with that.

BIDEN: War should always be the absolute last resort.

Click for Paul Ryan on other issues.   Source: 2012 Vice Presidential debate

Joe Biden on War & Peace : Oct 11, 2012
Iran Sanctions are most crippling in history

Q: Last week former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran's facilities would not work and "could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations." How effective would a military strike against Iran be, to prevent nuclear development?

RYAN: We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. This administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us from putting the tough sanctions in place. Now we have them in place because of Congress.

BIDEN: Incredible. These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. Look, imagine had we let the Republican Congress work out the sanctions. You think there's any possibility the entire world would have joined us, Russia and China, all of our allies? These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period, period. You're talking about doing more; are you going to go to war? Is that you want to do now?

RYAN: We want to prevent war!

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: 2012 Vice Presidential debate

Joe Biden on War & Peace : Oct 11, 2012
Iran is not close to nuclear weapons; stop the bluster

RYAN: When Barack Obama was elected, Iran had enough fissile material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They're racing toward a nuclear weapon. They're four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability.

BIDEN: We feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the Iranians. But #2, the Israelis and the US--our intelligence communities are absolutely the same exact place in terms of how close the Iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. They are a good way away. When [Ryan] talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20% up. Then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point. Both the Israelis and we know we'll know if they start the process of building a weapon. So all this bluster I keep hearing--Let's all calm down a little bit here. Iran is more isolated today than when we took office. It was on the ascendancy when we took office. It is totally isolated.

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: 2012 Vice Presidential debate

Paul Ryan on War & Peace : Oct 11, 2012
US needs credibility to have an effect on Iranian nukes

Q: How effective would a military strike against Iran be, to prevent nuclear development?

RYAN: We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. And talk about credibility. When this administration says that all options are on the table, they send out senior administration officials that send all these mixed signals. In order to solve this peacefully, you have to have the ayatollahs change their minds. It's because this administration has no credibility on this issue. It's because this administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us from putting the tough sanctions in place. Now we have them in place because of Congress. They say the military option's on the table but it's not being viewed as credible, and the key is to do this peacefully, is to make sure that we have credibility. Under a Romney administration, we will have credibility on this issue.

BIDEN: Incredible. These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period.

Click for Paul Ryan on other issues.   Source: 2012 Vice Presidential debate

Nikki Haley on Environment : Apr 3, 2012
Re-open Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste

I asked the president about South Carolina's Savannah River site, a department of Energy facility that has created thousands of jobs in our state. Nuclear material temporarily stored at the site had been scheduled to be permanently disposed of in Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The taxpayers had already paid $20 billion to develop Yucca Mountain, including $1.2 billion from South Carolina taxpayers. But the previous year, the Obama administration had cancelled further work on the project. "Will you keep the promise you made to the people of my state and reopen Yucca Mountain?" I asked. The president said no. "Then give us our money back." I said. When I go to Best Buy and pay for something that hasn't come in yet, I get my money back if it doesn't come in. What's the difference here?
Click for Nikki Haley on other issues.   Source: Can't Is Not an Option, by Gov. Nikki Haley, p.207

Ben Carson on War & Peace : Jan 24, 2012
Tyranny follows if we disarm nukes & madmen get them

I realize that some feel that the United States and other world powers with nuclear weapons have no right to declare that others cannot have them. On the surface this seems like a fair argument, but can you imagine how many deaths would occur if everyone were given a handgun? Perhaps it would be FAIR to give everyone a handgun, but it certainly would not be WISE. Although I applaud efforts toward nuclear disarmament, I also realize that if no one had nuclear weapons and one of the madmen of the world acquired them, worldwide tyranny would quickly follow. Therefore, we must be careful in pursuing our goals of an idyllic world.
Click for Ben Carson on other issues.   Source: America the Beautiful, by Ben Carson, p.135

Newt Gingrich on War & Peace : Jan 7, 2012
We have mismanaged region-wide crisis in Middle East

Q: When should our 90,000 troops in Afghanistan should be brought home?

GINGRICH: I think we're asking the wrong questions. Afghanistan is a tiny piece of a gigantic mess that is very dangerous. Pakistan is unstable and they probably have between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. Iran is actively trying to get nuclear weapons. They go out and practice closing the Strait of Hormuz, where one out of every six barrels of oil goes through every day. You have the Muslim Brotherhood winning the elections in Egypt. The truth is, we don't know who's in charge in Libya. You have a region-wide crisis, which we have been mismanaging and underestimating, which is not primarily a military problem. We're not going to go in and solve Pakistan militarily. We're not going to go in and solve all these other things. We need a fundamentally new strategy for the region comparable to what we developed to fight the cold war. And I think it's a very big, hard, long-term problem, but it's not primarily a military problem.

Click for Newt Gingrich on other issues.   Source: WMUR 2012 GOP New Hampshire debate

Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy : Dec 19, 2011
Use opportunity for regime change in North Korea

Mitt Romney called on the US to take the opportunity of dictator Kim Jong-Il's death to push for regime change in North Korea, a distinctly different message than the calls for stability and caution coming from President Obama.

"Kim Jong-il was a ruthless tyrant who lived a life of luxury while the North Korean people starved. He recklessly pursued nuclear weapons, sold nuclear and missile technology to other rogue regimes, and committed acts of military aggression against our ally South Korea. He will not be missed," Romney said. "His death represents an opportunity for America to work with our friends to turn North Korea off the treacherous course it is on and ensure security in the region. America must show leadership at this time. The North Korean people are suffering through a long and brutal national nightmare. I hope the death of Kim Jong-il hastens its end."

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: Josh Rogin in Foreign Policy Magazine

Condoleezza Rice on Homeland Security : Nov 1, 2011
1990s: Dreams of a missile shield died with the Cold War

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 limited defense to negligible levels. In 1983 Ronald Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), aimed at making nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." Even those who weren't wedded to the mutually assured destruction theology found the prospects for the success of Reagan's approach fairly dim. Reagan nevertheless pursued the initiative. But the dream of a national shield to protect the United States from Soviet nuclear weapons died with the end of the Cold War. Reagan and Gorbachev went on to sign important arms control agreements, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty remained intact. The same approach--new agreements and maintenance of the treaty--remained true for George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: No Higher Honor, by Condoleezza Rice, p. 58-59

Condoleezza Rice on War & Peace : Nov 1, 2011
Saddam was a cancer in the Mideast, even without WMD

We used the CIA's assessment that the aluminum tubes were for centrifuges--a key element in a nuclear weapons program. I misspoke during one of the interviews, saying that the tubes were most likely for nuclear use and corrected the language in subsequent statements. But the misstatement was taken as evidence that we were inflating the evidence. The entire case came to rest on those isolated intelligence statements about his programs.

The argument was really more straightforward: Saddam Hussein was a cancer in the Middle East who had attacked his neighbors, throwing the region into chaos. He had drawn the US into conflict twice, once to expel him from Kuwait and a second time to deliver air strikes against suspected WMD sites. Saddam wa routinely shooting at our aircraft patrolling under UN authority. The world had given Saddam one last chance to come clean about his weapons programs or face serious consequences. This time the word of the international community had to mean something.

Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: No Higher Honor, by Condoleezza Rice, p.197

Rick Perry on Energy & Oil : Oct 18, 2011
No federal energy subsidy; let states decide on nuke waste

Q: Do you support opening the national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain?

PERRY: Congressman Paul [and Governor Romney] are correct when it comes to allowing the states to compete with each other [rather than depositing nuclear waste in Nevada]. And I'll just add that when you think about France, who gets over 70% of their energy from nuclear power, they deal with this issue [via] glassification. Innovation is the answer to this. We need to have a discussion in this country about our 10th Amendment and the appropriateness of it, as it's been eroded by Washington, D.C., for all these many years, whether it's health care, whether it's education, or whether it's dealing with energy. We don't need to be subsidizing energy in any form or fashion: allow the states to make the decision. And some state out there will see the economic issue, and they will have it in their state.

Click for Rick Perry on other issues.   Source: GOP 2011 primary debate in Las Vegas

Newt Gingrich on Energy & Oil : Oct 18, 2011
Put nuclear waste in deep storage for 10,000 years

Q: Do you support opening the national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain?

GINGRICH: I think that it has to be looked at scientifically. We have to find a safe method of taking care of nuclear waste. Today, because it's been caught up in a political fight, we have small units of nuclear waste all over this country in a way that is vastly more dangerous than finding a method of keeping it in a very, very deep place that would be able to sustain 10,000 or 20,000 & 30,000 years of geological safety.

Q: Is Yucca Mountain that place?

GINGRICH: I'm not a scientist. I mean, Yucca Mountain certainly was picked by the scientific community as one of the safest places in the US.

Q: You were for opening it in Congress, right?

GINGRICH: When I was in Congress, I worked with the Nevada delegation to make sure that there was time for scientific studies. But we have to find some method of finding a very geologically stable place, and most geologists believe that, in fact, Yucca Mountain is that.

Click for Newt Gingrich on other issues.   Source: GOP 2011 primary debate in Las Vegas

Mitt Romney on Energy & Oil : Oct 18, 2011
Compensate Nevada for nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain

Q: [to Paul]: Do you support opening the national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain?

PAUL: I've opposed this. I approach it from a state's rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage in your state"?

ROMNEY: I don't always agree with Rep. Paul, but I do on that. The idea that 49 states can tell Nevada, "We want to give you our nuclear waste," doesn't make a lot of sense. I think the people of Nevada ought to have the final say as to whether they want that, and my guess is that for them to say yes to something like that, someone's going to have to offer them a pretty good deal, as opposed to having the federal government jam it down their throat. And if Nevada says, "Look, we don't want it," then let other states make bids and say, hey, look, we'll take it; here's the compensation we want for taking it. Let the free market work. And where the people say the deal's a good one will decide where we put this stuff.

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: GOP 2011 primary debate in Las Vegas

Rick Perry on Foreign Policy : Sep 22, 2011
F-16s to India; they are our allies, not Pakistan

Q: If you were president, and you go a call at 3AM telling you that Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons, at the hands of the Taliban, what would be your first move?

PERRY: Well obviously, before you ever get to that point you have to build a relationship in that region. That's one of the things that this administration has not done. Yesterday, we found out that Haqqani--the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country--has been involved with [terrorism. We need] to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the US. For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16's, we chose not to do that. We did the same with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them. Today, we don't have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.

Click for Rick Perry on other issues.   Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL

Newt Gingrich on Homeland Security : Sep 22, 2011
Real danger of Iran getting nukes from Pakistan

Q: [to Santorum] What would happen in the case of a Pakistani coup, with regards to Iran getting Pakistan's nuclear weapons?

SANTORUM: We should be establishing relationships in Pakistan with allies of ours, folks like Pres. Musharraf, so we could work to make sure that that coup could be overturned and make sure those nuclear weapon do not fall in those hands. But working with allies at that point is the last thing we want to do. We want to work in that country to make sure the problem is defused.

GINGRICH: I think people need to understand how real this is. This world is in danger of becoming dramatically more dangerous in the not-too-distant future. People talk about an Iranian weapon? There may be well over 100 nuclear weapons in Pakistan. And the example you used is not too far-fetched to worry about.

Click for Newt Gingrich on other issues.   Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL

Joe Biden on Principles & Values : Sep 20, 2011
2010: Negotiated trades in bipartisan Senate bills

Biden came to the Oval Office with a full dossier of issues he'd been handling with Congress. He'd been meeting since the 2010 midterm with his old colleagues in the Senate, John McCain and Mitch McConnell. In his dossier was a wide array of swaps: from the DREAM Act, which gave rights to illegal aliens; to the still unratified START II treaty on nuclear weapons reduction with the Russians; to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military in favor of acceptance of gays; to tax giveaways; to the closing of food safety programs that industry opposed.

Obama sat with Biden, going over the package. But now Obama said, "No, I'm not going to make some of these trades." Biden, who'd been waiting for his friend to step up and assert more control, gladly stepped back.

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: Confidence Men, by Ron Suskind, p.387 & 462

Gary Johnson on War & Peace : Aug 21, 2011
Let Israel deal with Iranian nukes; not US role to tell them

Q: Do you agree with Ron Paul that Iran is not a threat?

A: I think Israel is an important military ally and I support that alliance. I think Iran gets dealt with by Israel, which is likely to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I think it's wrong for our government to presume to tell Israel what to do.

Click for Gary Johnson on other issues.   Source: Interview by Scott Holleran on scottholleran.com blog

Barack Obama on Energy & Oil : Jan 26, 2011
FactCheck: clean coal isn't ready; nuke waste is unresolved

The president set a goal of obtaining 80% of our electricity from renewable sources, plus nuclear, natural gas and "clean" coal, by 2035. That'll take some work, but with three nonrenewable sources in the mix, the goal isn't unreachable.

The biggest conundrum is coal. Coal fuels 44% of electricity production. But "clean" coal, which usually refers to coal burned in a way that allows its carbon dioxide emissions to be captured and stored underground, is far from ready to step in and provide such a large share of the mix. The first large-scale "clean" coal plant is still under development. That means renewables like wind, solar and hydro will need to continue to expand their shares of the pie, as well as natural gas.

Obama also counts nuclear plants as "clean"--but that's a point that environmentalists debate, particularly since the question of what to do with the resulting highly radioactive waste has yet to be resolved.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: FactCheck.org on 2011 State of the Union speech

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Jan 25, 2011
New START treaty: more secure & fewer nuclear weapons

American leadership can be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

With our European allies, we revitalized NATO and increased our cooperation on everything from counterterrorism to missile defense.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2011 State of the Union speech

Mitt Romney on Homeland Security : Mar 2, 2010
Our nuclear arsenal must be updated comprehensively

America's strategic defense relies on credible nuclear deterrence. Accordingly, our nuclear arsenal must be updated--comprehensively and soon. While other nations have been testing and updating their nuclear capacity, we have done little to maintain our deterrent power.

Russia insists that nuclear reduction talks encompass only strategic nuclear weapons, not theater nuclear weapons, which are currently configured for short-range deployment. Their position is understandable, as they have many times the number of theater nuclear weapons as does the US; they'd like to cement that superiority into place

We must develop and install a robust missile defense system. Progress achieved in the Bush years in building a shield to protect the US from the missiles of rogue states and in preparing for a missile shield in Europe was a good start.

Ideally, we would rid the planet of nuclear weapons. But we are unlikely to be successful in doing so, at least within the coming decades.

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p. 88-89

Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy : Feb 6, 2010
Reaching out to hostile regimes has not worked

Misguided thinking is seen throughout the administration's foreign policy decisions. Our president spent a year reaching out to hostile regimes, writing personal letters to dangerous dictators and apologizing for America, and what do we have to show for that? Here's what we have to show. North Korea tested nuclear weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles. Israel, a friend and critical ally, now questions the strength of our support. Plans for a missile defense system in Europe, they've been scrapped. Relations with China and Russia are no better. and relations with Japan, that key Asian ally, they are in the worst shape in years.

The administration cut support for democracy programs. And where the president has not been clear, I ask where is his clear and where his strong voice of support for the Iranians who are risking all in their opposition to Ahmedinijad? We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America's friends from her enemies and recognizes the true nature of the threats that we face

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: 2010 Tea Party Convention speeches

Marco Rubio on Energy & Oil : Feb 3, 2010
Explore ANWR & outer continental shelf

I support a comprehensive energy plan that encourages nuclear energy, exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and environmentally safe leasing of oil and natural gas fields in the outer continental shelf and on federally owned lands with oil shale in the West. As senator, I will stand for policies that make us more energy efficient, less reliant on foreign sources of oil, create jobs and ease the burden on family budgets.
Click for Marco Rubio on other issues.   Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.marcorubio.com, "Issues"

Barack Obama on Foreign Policy : Jan 27, 2010
Iran is more isolated and will face growing consequences

Diplomatic efforts have strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions--sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations: They, too, will face growing consequences.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2010 State of the Union Address

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Jan 27, 2010
Secure all world's nuclear materials by international treaty

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people--the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2010 State of the Union Address

Rob Portman on Energy & Oil : Dec 25, 2009
Expanding nuclear energy is a safe and practical

During a trip to Cuyahoga County, Rob spent time with workers at Farris Engineering in Brecksville. The company makes pressure release valves and is a subsidiary of Curtis Wright Corp., which is part of the Wright Brothers proud legacy in Ohio. Farris Engineering is a successful manufacturer that provides some of the critical components for nuclear power plants. Expanding nuclear energy is a safe and practical solution to meeting our energy needs and ensuring a clean environment.
Click for Rob Portman on other issues.   Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, robportman.com "on the issues"

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Dec 10, 2009
Reduce US nuclear stockpile & prevent spread of nukes

One urgent example [of alternatives to violence] is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway

Barack Obama on Foreign Policy : Aug 4, 2009
2007: Raids into Pakistan to kill high-value terrorists

On August 8, 2007 in Chicago, the day after the fifth debate, hosted by the AFL-CIO, Obama had come under fire for his foreign policy statements over the last three weeks, beginning with the CNN-YouTube debate in South Carolina. In a speech, he had made an implied threat to mount cross-border raids into Pakistan by U.S. soldiers if actionable intelligence showed there was a chance to capture or kill "High-value terrorist targets." He stumbled over considering nuclear weapons to fight terrorism there. In Chicago, his opponents were instantly on the attack. Chris Dodd called Obama "highly irresponsible." Clinton said it was "a very big mistake to telegraph that and destabilize" the Pakistani government.

Obama fired back, but clearly he and his campaign had been put on the defensive. The exchanges bolstered the continuing story line. He wasn't seasoned enough to be president.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p. 89

Jon Huntsman on Gun Control : May 21, 2009
Conservative line on gun control

As governor, Huntsman lists economic development, health-care reform, education and energy security as his top priorities. Huntsman is receptive to environmental issues and would like the state to reduce fuel and energy consumption. He is also concerned with nuclear waste being stored within his state. On hot button social issues, such as abortion and gun control, Huntsman generally walks a more conservative line. The same is somewhat true for gay marriage, though he has shown support for civil unions
Click for Jon Huntsman on other issues.   Source: China Daily, "US Offiicials"

Newt Gingrich on Homeland Security : Feb 27, 2009
Be prepared in a very militant and aggressive way

We are not developing national security and homeland security at the margins. This is not about stopping two snipers or three car bombers...or 5 airplanes. We live in a world where if we gamble wrong, and the current proposed defense budget is much too small, if we gamble wrong whether it is a major power like China or Russia, a medium sized power like North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran, and North Korea is a medium sized power by possession of nuclear weapons. Or it is a fanatic group willing to die in the process of killing us.

We live in a world where there are weapons capable of ending civilization as we know it. And we need to be prepared in a very militant and aggressive way to defend America from having a catastrophic disaster of the first order.

Click for Newt Gingrich on other issues.   Source: Speech to 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference

Barack Obama on Energy & Oil : Oct 7, 2008
FactCheck: Reluctant on nuclear power in past; now favors it

Obama flatly said he favored nuclear energy--embracing it more warmly than in the past. Obama said, “Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.”

Previously Obama has been more hesitant. He said at a town hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, on Dec. 30, 2007, when asked if he was “truly comfortable” with the safety of nuclear power, “I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent.“ He then went on to say later in the same response that he has ”not ruled out nuclear ... but only so far as it is clean and safe.“

The energy plan Obama released in October 2007 only grudgingly conceded that more nuclear power is probably needed to reduce carbon emissions: ”It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table.“

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 second presidential debate

Joe Biden on Homeland Security : Oct 2, 2008
Obama worked with Republicans to reduce nuclear weapons

BIDEN: John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported. John McCain has opposed amending the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty with an amendment to allow for inspections. Barack Obama, first thing he did when he came to the United States Senate, reached across the aisle to my colleague, Dick Lugar, a Republican, and said, “We’ve got to do something about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.”
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Sarah Palin

Joe Biden on Homeland Security : Oct 2, 2008
Greatest security threat is from al Qaeda in Pakistan

Q: What’s the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan?

BIDEN: Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be destabilizing, but they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that’s able to be deployed. John continues to tell us that the central war on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it’s going to come from al Qaeda in the hills of Pakistan. We need to support that democracy by helping them with their economic well-being.

PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, and it’s probably the only thing that they’re ever going to agree on. An armed, nuclear Iran is so extremely dangerous. Israel is in jeopardy when we’re dealing with Iran. Others who are dangerous dictators are ones that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions. And that goes beyond naivete and poor judgment.

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin on Homeland Security : Oct 2, 2008
Economic sanctions on North Korea for nukes

Q: What should be the trigger for nuclear weapons use?

PALIN: Our nuclear weaponry here in the US is used as a deterrent. And that’s a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry. For North Korea under Kim Jong Il, we have got to make sure that we’re putting economic sanctions on these countries and that we have allies supporting us in this, to make sure that leaders like Kim Jong Il & Ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate, or to use those nuclear weapons. It is that important.

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Sen. Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton on War & Peace : Oct 1, 2008
2002: Saddam gave aid to Al Qaeda terrorists

"Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts. That he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons."
--Sen. John Edwards, Sept. 12, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
--Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2003

"If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late."
--Sen. Joseph Biden, Sept. 4, 2002

Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.   Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 28-29

Joe Biden on War & Peace : Oct 1, 2008
2002: Waiting to be sure of Saddam danger could be too late

"Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts. That he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons."
--Sen. John Edwards, Sept. 12, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
--Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2003

"If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late."
--Sen. Joseph Biden, Sept. 4, 2002

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 28-29

Sarah Palin on War & Peace : Sep 11, 2008
Nuclear Iran is dangerous to whole world

Q: Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

A: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe.

Q: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran?

A: We have got to make sure that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran.

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: ABC News: 2008 election interview with Charlie Gibson

Sarah Palin on Homeland Security : Sep 3, 2008
Focus on fighting Al-Qaeda terrorists, not on reading rights

What does [Barack Obama] actually seek to accomplish? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy.. our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?

Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.

Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: Speech at 2008 Republican National Convention

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Aug 1, 2008
Goal is a world without nuclear weapons

Without any introduction, Obama begins, "I am the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and, as president, I will end it.

"Second," he continues, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

"Third," he says, without pausing, "I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a ban on the production of fissile materials. And I will negotiate with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p. 1-2

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Aug 1, 2008
A New Beginning: seek world with no nuclear weapons

On Oct. 2, 2007, Obama declared, "A New Beginning," announcing, "America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." Obama made clear he did not intend to pursue unilateral disarmament. He promised to work with Russia "to take US & Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert."

"We'll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons." Obama stated we would set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so the agreement is global

Obama argued, "We'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules." This is truly the crux of Obama's argument: because we do not demonstrate moral leadership, other nations have no choice but to proliferate nuclear weapons. At the base of the argument, Obama is saying a world with nuclear weapons is our fault. "It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse," he said. "It's time for America to lead."

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.261-262

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Jul 24, 2008
Seek the peace of a world without nuclear weapons

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The Cold War superpowers came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the furthe spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: Speech in Berlin, in Change We Can Believe In, p.267-8

Barack Obama on Energy & Oil : Jun 26, 2008
GovWatch: Opposes Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage

McCain portrays Obama as saying “no to clean, safe, nuclear energy.” That’s false. But there’s no question that McCain is a much bigger advocate of nuclear power than Obama, who has taken a more guarded position. McCain has said that he’d work to bring 45 new nuclear power plants online by 2030, with the eventual goal of building 100 new nuclear plants. Obama has criticized that, highlighting his opposition to long-term storage of nuclear waste at the federal government’s Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. “He wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors when they don’t have a plan to store the waste anywhere besides right here,” Obama said on June 25. McCain supports going ahead with the Yucca Mountain plan.

Obama’s 2007 plan promised that he “will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis.” It’s inaccurate to cast Obama as an opponent, and McCain goes too far when he portrays Obama as saying “no” to nuclear.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: GovWatch on 2008: Washington Post analysis

Barack Obama on War & Peace : Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel

Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?

OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.

Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?

CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Feb 2, 2008
Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons

Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop th development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and expand globally the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 50-55

Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy : Jan 30, 2008
The US is the only major power believing in free enterprise

China is saying we’re going to use communism, plus sort of a Wild West form of a free enterprise. We’re going to give nuclear weapons -- or nuclear technology to the Iranians, we’re going to buy oil from the Sudanese. You’ve got China. Then you’ve got al Qaeda, which says we want to bring everybody down. And then finally there’s us, the only major power in the world that says we believe in free enterprise and freedom for the individual. And this great battle is going on right now, and it’s essential for us to strengthen other friends like ourselves, and to confront one by one these other strategies and help turn them towards modernity so that the world our kids inherent does not have to know war. Will there be war? Of course there will always be terrible events in the world. But let’s do everything in our power to keep war from occurring. Move these voices of moderation and having such strength in our own military that people never question our ability to respond.
Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley

Barack Obama on Environment : Jan 15, 2008
Will end the notion of Yucca Mountain nuclear storage

I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure people that they’re going to be safe. That was a mistake. You hate to see billions of dollars having already been spent, but I don’t want to spend additional billions of dollars and potentially create a situation that is not safe. I’ve been clear from the start that Yucca was a misconceived project. I want to get the best experts and make a determination on the best science available.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas

Hillary Clinton on Environment : Jan 15, 2008
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain

I voted against Yucca Mountain in 2001. I have been consistently against Yucca Mountain, looking at all the reasons why Yucca Mountain is not workable. The science does not support it. We do have to figure out what to do with nuclear waste. I have consistently and persistently been against Yucca Mountain, and I will make sure it does not come into effect when I’m president.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.   Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Jan 6, 2008
Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy

I’ve worked on nuclear proliferation in the Senate, to improve interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. It is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate

Hillary Clinton on Foreign Policy : Dec 13, 2007
Establish leadership & moral authority via multilateralism

Q: When future historians write of your administration’s foreign policy pursuits, what will be noted as your doctrine and the vision you cast for U.S. diplomatic relations?

A: It will be a doctrine of restoring America’s leadership and moral authority through multilateral organizations, through attempts to come to agreements on issues ranging from global warming to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other dangerous weapons. It will be a doctrine that demonstrates that the United States is not afraid to cooperate; that through cooperation in our interdependent world, we actually can build a stronger country and a stronger world that will be more reflective of our values.

Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.   Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate

John Bolton on War & Peace : Nov 6, 2007
North Korea will never give up nuclear weapons voluntarily

[Under Clinton], their catechism was always the same: North Korea can be talked out of its nuclear weapons program.

The Democratic People Republic of Korea (DPRK) will never give up nuclear weapons voluntarily. If often promises to do so, as it did in the Clinton administration's 1994 Agreed Framework. It will even more readily BARGAIN over that promise, especially in exchange for items of tangible economic and political value, such as fuel, oil, nuclear reactors, "security assurances," or removal from our list of state sponsors of terrorism. The DPRK will gladly "engage" with us, accept our concession, and then violate its own commitments. The DPRK has followed this game plan successfully many times, and it has every reason to believe it will continue to succeed into the future.

In short, the Clinton policy and the Agreed Framework were classic illustrations of the delusion that a rogue state could be coaxed out of nuclear weapons, and were embarrassments to the US.

Click for John Bolton on other issues.   Source: Surrender is Not an Option, by John Bolton, p. 99-101

John Bolton on War & Peace : Nov 6, 2007
Throughout Bush presidency, Iranian nukes were a problem

Throughout George W. Bush's presidency, Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions were a constant problem. Iran's goals never changed, but the administration's goals were too often in flux, and not pursued as consistently or as relentlessly as they might have been. Whether, after his reelection, President Bush wavered personally remains unknown, but too many of his subordinates did, and he allowed them to do so. As a result, Iran continued to make progress toward its goal, while we watched.

I certainly did not accomplish what I wanted to do on Iran. I was not able to convince enough other people above me of the seriousness of Iran's threat; I suggested early on a multilateral diplomatic course that others hijacked and ran in slow motion, to my dismay and to our detriment; and finally, time just ran out on me as I left State.

Click for John Bolton on other issues.   Source: Surrender is Not an Option, by John Bolton, p.130

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

Barack Obama on War & Peace : Oct 30, 2007
Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons

Q: Would you pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

A: We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. We have been governed by fear for the last 6 years. Bush has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. It is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, “We are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously and take action to make sure that the US is secure.”

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University

Barack Obama on War & Peace : Oct 30, 2007
Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal

That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region. What we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, talking to our enemies and focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, and talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized. We have not made those serious attempts. This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region. It doesn’t send the right signal to our allie or our enemies. As a consequence, over the long term, it weakens our capacity to influence Iran. There may come a point where those measures have been exhausted & Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University

Hillary Clinton on Energy & Oil : Sep 6, 2007
Opposes Yucca Mountain; earthquake fault goes under it

Q: Would you rule out expanding nuclear power?

A: No, but it would not be one of the options that I favor, unless, number one, the cost can get down for the construction and operation; number two, that we have a viable solution for the nuclear waste. I voted against Yucca Mountain. I’ve spoken out against Yucca Mountain. I think that recently the discovery--there’s an earthquake fault going under the proposed site at Yucca Mountain--certainly validates my opposition. So there are a lot of very difficult questions. But we’re going to have to look at the entire energy profile, in order to determine how we’re going to move away from our dependence upon carbon-based fuels. And I will look at everything, but there are some tough questions you’d have to answer with respect to nuclear.

Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.   Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College

Mitt Romney on War & Peace : Sep 5, 2007
Deal with Iran nukes with Dems at home & with allies abroad

Q: Would you go to war with Iran if they developed nuclear weapons & threatened Israel?

A: Well, clearly your hypothetical suggests that everything we’ve done, up until this point and beyond, didn’t work. And there’s a lot we can do to keep that scenario from occurring. Before you actually take military action, what you do next is this: the president meets with leaders, Republican and Democrat, to make sure we’re all on the same page. We want to make sure that Democrats sign up, that we’re all part of this on a unified basis. Number two, you meet with our allies around the world and make sure we’re on the same page on this, including China & Saudi Arabia. Now we take the military option off the table. When they see our military in our hand, a possible blockade or possible aerial strikes, they recognize we mean business. And that’s going to make them think twice and, hopefully, abandon their folly. Because it is unacceptable to the world for us to have a nuclear Iran.

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News

Joe Biden on Foreign Policy : Aug 19, 2007
Pakistan is potentially most dangerous country in the world

Q: [to Biden]: Why isn’t Senator Obama ready?

BIDEN: Look, I think he’s a wonderful guy. It was about Pakistan we were talking about. The fact of the matter is, Pakistan is potentially the most dangerous country in the world. A significant minority of jihadists with nuclear weapons. We have no Pakistan policy; we have a Musharraf policy. That’s a bad policy. The policy should be based upon a long-term relationship with Pakistan and stability. We should be encouraging free elections. There is an overwhelming majority of moderates in that country. They should have their day.

Q: But when you were asked, “Is he ready?” you said, “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

BIDEN: I think I stand by the statement.

OBAMA: If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and we’ve exhausted all other options, we should take him out before he plans to kill another 3,000 Americans. I think that’s common sense

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week”

Barack Obama on War & Peace : Aug 19, 2007
Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes

Q: [to Clinton]: You criticized Sen. Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida in Pakistan, yet you said the same against Bush’s use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran, saying: “I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table.” What’s the difference there?

CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administration’s policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get “bunker-buster” nuclear bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.

Q: Do you accept that distinction?

OBAMA: There was no difference. It is not hypothetical that Al Qaida has established base camps in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. No military expert would advise that we use nuclear weapons to deal with them, but we do have to deal with that problem.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week”

Hillary Clinton on War & Peace : Aug 19, 2007
Rule out nukes against Iran

Q: You criticized Sen. Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida in Pakistan, yet you said the same against Bush’s use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran:
Clinton on videotape:
“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And this administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven’t seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. I think that’s a terrible mistake.”
Q: What’s the principal difference there?

CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administration’s policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get what are called bunker-buster bombs, nuclear bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.

OBAMA: There’s no difference [in our policies].

Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.   Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week”

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Aug 14, 2007
2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles

Obama’s greatest legislative success was teaming with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana on a bill that expanded US cooperation to reduce stockpiles of conventional weapons and expanded the State Department’s ability to interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. In the spring of 2005, Obama had traveled to Russia with Lugar to inspect nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.313

Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy : Jun 3, 2007
US is not arrogant, but we have resolve

Q: If it came down to Iran having a nuclear bomb, would you authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

A: You don’t take options off the table. All over the world we’re seeing the same thing happening, and that is, people are testing the US. We have to make sure they understand that we’re not arrogant. We have resolve. And we have the strength to protect our interests and to protect people who love liberty. For that to happen, we’re going to have not just to attack each one of these problems one by one, but say, “How do we help move the world of Islam so that the moderate Muslims can reject the extreme?” And for that to happen, we’re going to have to have a strong military and an effort to combine with our allies in such a way that we combine for an effort to help move Islam towards modernity. There is a war going on, and we need a broad response to make sure that these people have a different vision.

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College

Newt Gingrich on Foreign Policy : May 20, 2007
We need a dramatically expanded use of statecraft

Sen. DODD: Why aren’t we using statecraft? What’s happened to the utilization of other tools available to us--our economic, our political, our diplomatic resources--which are almost been neglected in this entire process?

GINGRICH: I partially agree with Sen. Dodd. I am not comfortable either with the current situation in Iraq, nor am I comfortable around the world with our extraordinarily limited use of statecraft. The North Koreans are cheating on their agreement on nuclear weapons. We still do not have control of Waziristan in northwest Pakistan, where Bin Laden’s probably hiding. We have been told by the UN that the Iranians are now producing at least 1300 centrifuges, producing nuclear material, and that they almost certainly will have a nuclear weapon within a year. You look around the world, the forces of freedom are on retreat, the forces that are anti-freedom, pro-dictatorship, and, in some cases, purely evil are on offense. We need a dramatically expanded ability to use statecraft.

Click for Newt Gingrich on other issues.   Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series

Barack Obama on War & Peace : Apr 26, 2007
Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat

KUCINICH: You previously said that all options are on the table with respect to Iran. That means you’re setting the stage for another war. We’re in Iraq for oil. We’re looking at attacking Iran for oil.

OBAMA: I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region. They’re in the process of developing it. And I don’t think that’s disputed by any expert. They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism, of Hezbollah and Hamas.

KUCINICH: It is disputed.

OBAMA: There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world--but I think it is important for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC

Condoleezza Rice on War & Peace : Sep 26, 2006
OpEd: References to mushroom clouds incited Iraq War

With false and distorted claims after 9/11, our new political leaders misled the US Congress and the American public into believing that Saddam Hussein had somehow been responsible for the dastardly attack on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, and that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons & posed a direct threat to the security of America.

Although the deceptiveness of these statements was later revealed, most of our trusting citizens were supportive of the war. Exaggerated claims of catastrophe from nonexistent WMDs kept the fears alive, with V.P. Cheney repeatedly making false statement, such as, "Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of war." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice backed him with horrifying references to mushroom clouds over the cities of America. There is little wonder that, at least for a few months, fearful American citizens and members of Congress supported the unnecessary war

Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: Our Endangered Values, by Jimmy Carter, p.150-151

Hillary Clinton on Homeland Security : Jan 6, 2006
Marshal resources against proliferation of nuclear weapons

We should have a very high level of commitment from the White House, including a person responsible in our government for marshaling our resources against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There has to be a better organizing effort to make sure that every part of the government is working together. I don’t think we’ve done what we need to do on homeland defense. We haven’t done enough on port security. We have not made the kind of commitment necessary to protect us.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.   Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Jan 6, 2006
Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound issue if it were nuclear weapons. That’s why it’s so important for us to rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology. We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now. These are all things that we should be taking leadership on. Part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long-term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate

Bobby Jindal on War & Peace : Nov 2, 2004
Prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Fight terrorists wherever the hide, keeping them on the run with broad strategies to disrupt terrorist’s resources and operations. Prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as terrorist groups attempt to steal discarded or unprotected Cold War era weapons materials. Prevent countries such as North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons and missile technologies. Continue to make the tracking of terrorist financing the center of America’s counterterrorism efforts.
Click for Bobby Jindal on other issues.   Source: 2004 House campaign website, BobbyJindal.com

Barack Obama on Homeland Security : Jul 12, 2004
Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes

More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia still has more nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to produce 50,000 more. At the current rate of spending, it will take 13 years to secure all the potential bomb material from the old Soviet Republic. We should increase funding to do it in four years. We must also strengthen the existing Non-Proliferation Treaty, and lead in the efforts to prevent countries with the proven capability to build WMDs from doing so.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ”

Barack Obama on War & Peace : Jul 12, 2004
Engage North Korea in 6-party talks

[We should] address the threat posed by North Korea. By refusing to negotiate with North Korea for three and half years, experts believe that North Korea may now be close to having six to eight nuclear weapons. We must immediately insist on complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea’s nuclear capability, engage in Six-Party bilateral talks, and facilitate a reform agenda that is broader than denuclearization to address humanitarian concerns.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ”

Jon Huntsman on Environment : Nov 17, 2003
Disallow hotter levels of nuclear waste in Utah

The beauty of our state is one of our greatest assets. Utah must not be the dumping ground for America’s radioactive wastes. We cannot allow “hotter” levels of nuclear waste into our state. Some may say that funding education through these “hotter” waste types would help pay for our education needs. However, we cannot pay for our children’s education by mortgaging their future health and safety.
Click for Jon Huntsman on other issues.   Source: Press release, “Opposes Nuclear Waste”

  • Additional quotations related to Nuclear Energy & Weapons issues can be found under Energy & Oil.
  • Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil.
Candidates on Energy & Oil:
Incumbents:
Pres.Barack Obama
V.P.Joe Biden
Secy.John Kerry
Secy.Chuck Hagel

 Related issues:
Afghanistan
Alternative Energy
Armed Forces Personnel
Energy Independence
Gays in Military
Global Warming
Iranian Nukes
Iraq
Israel & Palestine
SDI Missile Defense
Veterans
War on Terror
WMD

2016 Presidential contenders:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg(I-NYC)
Amb.John Bolton(R-MD)
Gov.Jeb Bush(R-FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(T-MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(R-NJ)
Secy.Hillary Clinton(D-NY)
Sen.Ted Cruz(T-TX)
Gov.Andrew Cuomo(D-NY)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel(D-IL)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(R-LA)
Gov.Nikk Haley(R-SC)
Rep.Peter King(R-NY)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(D-MD)
Gov.Deval Patrick(D-MA)
Sen.Rand Paul(R-KY)
Sen.Rob Portman(R-OH)
Sen.Marco Rubio(R-FL)
Gov.Jesse Ventura(I-MN)
2012 Presidential:
Rep.Michele Bachmann(T-MN)
Rep.Newt Gingrich(R-GA)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(R-AR)
Gov.Jon Huntsman(R-UT)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Gov.Sarah Palin(R-AK)
Rep.Ron Paul(R-TX)
Gov.Rick Perry(R-TX)
Gov.Mitt Romney(R-MA)
Rep.Paul Ryan(R-WI)
Sen.Rick Santorum(R-PA)
Donald Trump(I-NY)
Please consider volunteering for OnTheIssues!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Mar 06, 2014