Bill Kristol, who is, I think, a very astute observer of these matters, wrote in the Washington Post in April of last year: Yet to justify a world without nuclear weapons, what Obama would really have to envision is a world without war, or without threats of war . . . The danger is that the allure of a world without nuclear weapons can be a distraction--even an excuse for not acting against real nuclear threats. So while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear- and missile-capable North Korea and Iran--and a far more dangerous world. The point of all of the people whom I don't quote here but will include for the Record is that the genie will not be put back in the bottle. Countries will have nuclear weapons. As one of them pointed out, if we were ever, by some magic, able to rid the world of nuclear weapons, the threat of one nation quickly acquiring them would be the most destabilizing thing one could imagine. The reality is, it is not going to happen. The United States moving toward that goal is not going to influence anyone, including North Korea or Syria or Iran or other countries that may mean the United States harm.…
On the recordDecember 17, 2010
Share & report
More from Jon Kyl
Dec 30, 2012
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), and the Senator from…
Dec 28, 2012
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was…
Oct 5, 2018
Mr. President, I know that the Democratic leader is scheduled to speak next, but if there is a minute that I could take in between, I just wanted to comment on my colleague who spoke yesterday, Senator Collins. I had wanted to come to the…





