[Carl/NewsMax]

The state of Massachusetts is not responsible for responding to a nuclear war.

Not true. In Kerry's view at the time, the state of MA had limited responsibilities in the event of nuclear war, as the Kerry EO makes clear.

He outlined two choices in the EO. Education and prevention vs civil defense preparation. Kerry chose the first option, saying any defense against a nuclear attack was pointless.

What he would do as president, I have no idea. He hasn't spoken to the issue during the campaign.

But we do know that the only time he had responsibility for formulating a plan to respond to a nuclear strike, he said preparing a defense would only encourage an attack.

That's part of Kerry's record and the American people are entitled to draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate.

[Taliesan]

American people are entitled to draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate.

The American people will never see this article, precisely because you have a reputation for sloppiness, which reputation you are working hard to preserve on this thread.

[Monti Cello]

What's also interesting, but unmentioned, is that this is precisely opposite Kerry's current policy against terrorism.

Now his plans focus on the hypothetical aftermath (fire crews, etc), not the pre-emption or prevention of attack.

As with his recent Iraq war votes, Kerry is 180 degrees out of phase with where he rationally and politically ought to be.

A state gov't is responsible for civil defense, not geopolitical strategy. A President should be primarily responsible for deterrence and prevention and military strategy, and not for the logistics of evacuation and cleanup.

[NJ_gent]

"But we do know that the only time he had responsibility for formulating a plan to respond to a nuclear strike, he said preparing a defense would only encourage an attack."

No, what he said was that he's not going to direct funds to tell people to "go to location [X]" in the event of a nuclear war because, in his view, all those people would be dead rather quickly anyway. The EO never speaks to military responses against the nuclear attacker - merely to civilian preparations. I don't agree with the policy, but the article's headline sensationalizes it with such ambiguity that it makes my head hurt. As another poster said earlier, this is exactly the type of stuff that the NY Times does with headlines. It's irresponsible, it's misleading, and it's not the sort of thing that should ever be called "journalism".

[GOP_1900AD]

When I read your article, I immediately recognized Kerry's sick mindset. The most disturbing thing, to me, about the attitude of non preparation for a very real (even today!) great war contingency was that it shamefully and politically put the unobtaiable utopian ideal of building this mythical "World Beyond War" as more important than protection of the Commonwealth, which government is sworn to do. So, not only was it a horrendous ethical and moral failing, it was an abject failing of duty and honor. If this man gets elected, we shall be in deep trouble.