Soviet Union was developing laser space battle station Skif from beginning of 80's

Polyus-Skif was the Soviet response to the American 'Star Wars' program of the 1980s. The Polyus was launched in May 1987 but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit into the South Pacific. More information can be found at Encyclopedia Astronautica.

Yes, Kerry opposed Missile Defense and the new nuke research:

From: http://www.neoperspectives.com/johnkerry.htm

-snip-
Of course, this is all completely disingenuous and the height of hypocrisy. Kerry opposed Reagan at every corner, from tax cuts to government spending to foreign policy. And our allies? Kerry must have forgotten the massive street protests that rocked Europe when Reagan inserted Pershing missiles to counter the Soviet nukes (an act which Kerry opposed). Kerry was even against missile defense, saying it was "a dream based on illusion, but one which could have real and terrible consequences" (14) The Bush campaign claims he voted 53 times against missile defense funding.

With North Korean missiles able to reach the coast of California, perhaps he should apologize. Not a chance. Again, he doesn't appear to believe he was wrong. Kerry and his advisors have nuanced/moderated his present opposition to missile defense with contradictory statements. Most experts believe he would slash funding for it at minimum. (18) (19)

-snip-

The United States has defeated Communism, Nazism, and Fascism and in all three instances freed vast swathes of the world from horrifying regimes. US troops have rebuilt and made prosperous multitudes of countries throughout the world. US troops do not have imperialistic aims and do not plunder or demand tribute as other armies have done throughout history. They are certainly are not in Iraq for oil, as Kerry and his campaign suggest. Historically, America has offered hope and freedom to the oppressed and stuck fear into the heart of tyrants. The United States of America has been the only steady force for good in this world. Kerry doesn't seem to see it this way. He seems to think our actions in South East Asia, Central America and Iraq were 'ill-advised'.

It almost seems as if he is suspicious of US power. He thinks bunker busting nuclear weapons (which he would cancel) and a missile defense system create more dangers then protections. Bunker busting nukes might provide the only viable option to eliminate new hardened underground facilities that countries such as Iran and North Korea are using to construct weapons of mass destruction. Possession of these weapons will increase our negotiating power with these rouge regimes and most likely actually decrease the chance of war. Japan, Australia and European countries have all signed on to be placed under the protection of the US 'missile defense shield'. Remember when the Soviet Union didn't believe Ronald Reagan's offer that we would share our missile defense technology?

Kerry is in favor of a banning weapons from space. This would be like Franklin Roosevelt agreeing to ban tanks. The United States may agree not pursue these weapons, but other nations surely will. Would you feel safe if China or Russia had the ability to destroy all US satellites and thus a clear military advantage over the United States? It is foolish to even consider embarking on this course.

In Senator Kerry's eyes, a strong United States is an arrogant, foolhardy United States. He seems to believe we just can't be trusted with these new dangerous weapons or provocative new defenses. In reality, the exact opposite is true. We are the the country that should be trusted with these weapons. In a dangerous world, strength brings peace.

"To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
George Washington, First Annual Message, January 8, 1790

"History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."
Ronald Reagan

If Kerry had a little more pride in the United States and a better understanding of the history of this country, then maybe he would realize that the best hope for peace in the modern world is a strong, heavily armed United States military. Perhaps this is why liberals are so defensive about being labeled 'unpatriotic'. It is wrong to call them unpatriotic because they are not, but there is this sense that they don't really understand what the United States represents, or what makes this country great. To side with dictators and Communists, defer to the UN, and fight any attempt to use the US military to liberate oppressed populations, especially when it is vital to our national security, defies any explanation. This is not the message any future commander in chief should send to our citizens, our allies, and our men and women in uniform.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.