In a technical legal sense, I believe that is the way it is interpreted. I might also make another point, just to correct something--and we can have this debate later if you want to-- but it is not true that no changes qualitatively or quantitatively in U.S. missile defenses will occur until after the 10 years that this treaty will be enforced. In fact, one of the most critical questions is whether the GBI systems we have deployed in Alaska and California will be available to be deployed in Europe or on the East Coast or somewhere else in 2015 or whether that will be delayed until 2017. So, clearly, there are--and those are the systems that would be potentially effective against a Russian ICBM.
Jon Kyl: “In a technical legal sense, I believe that is the way it is interpreted. I might also make another point, just to…”
On the recordDecember 17, 2010
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is discussing the implications of a treaty on U.S. missile defense systems.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
Nov 14, 2023
The threat briefings that we received leave no question that both China and Russia, but particularly China see space as a war fighting domain.
Nov 14, 2023
It's enough that it's opportunistic. In other words, we're in a conflict with one, and the other sees that this is an opportunity.
Nov 14, 2023
The first thing we've got to do is have a conventional capability which is so dominant that no party would ever consider a nuclear attack against the United States.
Nov 14, 2023
One of the things that we noticed in this endeavor is there is a great attitude among the military, among the Defense Department generally in being able to succeed at a mission.





