Ben Nelson

The approach that places top priority on movement towards nuclear zero and other arms reductions will dominate those considerations

While the administration may be moving forward in anticipation of a new reduction, anything that it's doing is not intended to be unilateral.

I'm very much in favor of moving forward with a follow-on treaty.

I just think there's a danger in going below this level and I think we need to be careful and thoughtful about it.

So the support that we have for them I would continue to advocate in the strongest possible way.

I think there were a lot of questions raised during the debate on the floor of the Senate about the treaty, whether or not there would be enough nuclear weapons for our offense and defense.

Our goal is, obviously, to make sure that others know what we can do to prevent their being successful in attacking us.

Specifically, our orientation today is on North Korea where they have both demonstrated that they have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

A second very positive step is the fact that we have a treaty with the Russians at all.

I think the single, most valuable thing about the treaty is that it does, in fact, place limits on those weapons that threaten the United States of America most significantly and most immediately.

If a terrorist, for example, were able to obtain nuclear materials, plutonium or uranium, build an improvised nuclear device, and blow that device up in a U.S. city, obviously, the devastation would be significant.

In addition to worrying about space debris, we also have to be concerned about our adversaries perhaps trying to bring down or jam our satellites.