I do believe it was a mistake. I think it could really help our security and not cause the problems some suggested.

I do not believe that our allies and friends will have any reason to doubt the credibility of U.S. nuclear security guarantees at the 700/1,550 New START limits.

I think the negotiations were further weakened by the clearly stated goal of this administration of moving toward a nuclear-free world, which is unrealistic.

I do believe, however, that Russia's stockpile of short-range nuclear weapons vastly exceeds any reasonable political or military requirements and that Russia should be convinced to carry out dramatic reductions of those weapons.

It appears to me we will be in a situation, if we actually go forward with a system in Europe, that the Russians will threaten to get out of the treaty.

Allied doubts about the credibility of U.S. security commitments could undermine alliance relations and encourage nuclear proliferation among some allies and friends.

The plans were to take that three-stage missile, develop it into a two-stage missile and be able to deploy it in 2015, 2016 in Central Europe that could provide an additional protection against missile launches from Iran and perhaps a…

Let me tell you what concerns me. We have deployed a missile system in Alaska and several in California that could defend us potentially against most of the world and particularly the Pacific, North Korea-type launch, a limited launch…

I have several fundamental concerns. First, the administration has been far too anxious, in my view, to sign and get the New START treaty done.

I worry about it. I don't feel like we have this right.

Russia, to my view, is not the most important threat to America right now.

A limited system that could protect us from a rogue state or an accidental launch is not a threat to Russian strategic nuclear weapons.

I don't think that's a sound policy. But it's been part of the anxiousness, I believe, that has been affecting these negotiations.

The only problem is that if the President had his way, the three of you wouldn't have jobs because he wants no nuclear weapons.

I would just share my colleague, Senator Inhofe's, concern about the out-years.

Are you saying the New START treaty would enhance the United States' ability to monitor the actions of the Russians?

So not having fallen off the turnip truck last week, I am of the view that this signals a decision not to deploy what was virtually ready to begin to be deployed, to put it off in the future.

Without any doubt, we would be better treating them under the military commissions until we decide otherwise.

That is consistent with our understanding of war.

Well, I think that is, I guess, a reality, but it has got to be carefully thought through, or else you are just picking and choosing winners.

If an individual is arrested with a bomb attempting to attack the United States, a non-citizen... why wouldn't the best procedure be to presumptively charge them through the military commission process?

But if you hold them in a military commission, they do not have to be given a lawyer, they do not have to be warned of rights, and they do not have to be even set for trial.

I think it had a basis.

It seems to me that it just makes common sense that the presumption would be that that individual would be held as a combatant.

Normally, I was taught, if they violated the law, you charge them. If they did not violate the law, you do not charge them.