Given the threats posed by Russian nuclear cruise missiles and other short-range nuclear systems, do you believe U.S. and NATO nuclear forces are adequate to counter Russian nuclear threats and strategy while assuring allies?

This is a new threat that was not there before, and I agree with that, and I am concerned about that.

exquisite integration across multiple components of not only the Defense Department, also the United States Government, as a key challenge to confronting growing threat.

If we want to be more agile, then the reality is that we are going to have to push decision authority down.

In my 2016 final assessment on implications of Russia's evolving A2/AD, I underlined three key requirements.

we are not currently organized, trained, and equipped to face a peer adversary in the year 2025.

We need to get a broad range of skills and experience here.

NATO has to relook at its peacetime activities and force presence.

What practical steps can we take to bring us closer to the 66 percent readiness goal?

Permanent force structure is preferred over rotational forces.

They are a peer competitor in the Indo-Asia-Pacific, and I deal with them from that perspective.

Our alliance with Australia is an anchor of peace and stability in the region and globally.

the United States commitment to Thailand when I spoke at the opening ceremony of Exercise Cobra Gold

I still think it is back to priorities, and a lot of people out there in the real world agree with me.

we have reduced our capability since the Cold War by 70 percent or something like that, while other countries... have been increasing theirs

Does that change your thinking in terms of priorities?

It is important for everyone to understand this is the second time around for this, because we introduced this bill last year.

I believe advances in nuclear energy can help us sustain that nurturing environment for job creation, cleaner air for our people and our planet.