I think it is also an inappropriate place to make the point that contrary to those who assert that the Chemical Weapons Convention deals with this problem, it does not. We should be very, very clear about that. There are reasons for proponents to suggest that this Chemical Weapons Convention should be supported. There are arguments of opponents as to why that should not be the case. But I hope that we do not have people arguing on the floor of the Senate here that the Chemical Weapons Convention will deter terrorists, that somehow this will make us safer from terrorist attack, because it cannot fulfill that noble goal.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the implications of a chemical incident in Washington, DC, and the effectiveness of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
The best way to deter a nuclear conflict is to deter a conventional conflict with the nuclear powers.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, Representative Jacobs, the whole point is if the adversary believes that our system no longer functions, then they don't need to try to wipe it out at the beginning of a conflict.
I certainly appreciate this comment by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because the Secretaries of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have all said our strategic deterrent has to be our No. 1 priority. Why is…
let me speak a moment about this act. The sponsors, as you have just heard, and supporters like Senator Portman have proceeded with very good intentions. As you just heard, a compelling case for finding ways to help people who have made a…





