Senator Graham is correctly challenging and asking some legitimate information.
I think our allies and our adversaries may get the wrong impression about the willingness and capability of the United States to respond.
Today, the United States lacks a sufficient range of response options to signal, compel, and defeat nuclear adversaries facing our allies an...
The choice right now is modernizing or losing deterrent capability in the 2020s and 2030s. That is the stark choice that we face.
The history of all government agencies and even the Defense Department, which, in general, does better than most government agencies, is tha...
The alliance is not overly impressing me about how it operates.
Every time the Russian bear growls, we provide more to reassure Europe. They must not be so afraid if they are not willing to put up any of ...
I just really feel like that.
We just have to understand that.
Would you agree that additional response options are needed?
We need to keep the pressure on Europe to do more financially. We are now at 75 percent paying the costs of NATO.
The deal was, Senator Sullivan, that North Korea proposed a threat, and we decided to accelerate the process to actually get these things in...
It is problematic that there is no money in the whole five-year plan.
I think maybe more so now in recent years than in the past, push to make sure that we do the things necessary for real defense capability.
Unfortunately, it's just a fact of our life and necessary to defend America.
It goes beyond even money. It goes beyond how do you have a right to demand that we defend Europe when Russia is not on our border?
We've done--we were--have been the only nation that hasn't been advancing our systems.
Well, sometimes it has to be done, and it has to be spent, but--just briefly, again, so the 5.2 billion was not in the last year's FYDP.
