This subcommittee has spent a lot of time focused on the need for a responsive U.S. nuclear infrastructure.

Why doesn't the existing U.S. nuclear force have sufficient capacity for discrimination?

Project Atom had an overarching constraint that the force postures the teams recommended must be possible within approximately $35 billion per year in constant 2013 dollars, comprising 4 to 5 percent of the defense budget.

Please describe what response you would recommend if Russia carries out, in a regional confrontation with the U.S. in, say, the Baltics, their 'escalate-to-deescalate' doctrine and used a single, low-yield nuclear weapon?

I believe that the 'overarching constraint' set by the Project Atom study the 2025-2050 nuclear posture should be possible within 'approximately $35 billion per year in constant 2013 dollars.'

Russia has moved in a direction in some ways much harsher, particularly in terms of its potential use of nuclear weapons

Deterring discriminate attacks at the lower end of the nuclear continuum depends critically on the United States having nuclear response options.

The government has to protect its interest.

Well absolutely, we need to take some action. But I have a little different perspective. This is a great opportunity from a Russian perspective to fire missiles they've converted from ship to ship targets to a ship to land targets.

We need to change it. We need to confront them and we need to find a way to do it that's limited and calculated so that they understand that we're serious.

I just find that obscene.

Why in the world would you not tell somebody what they have to do to come back into compliance?