It seems that we would all want the military leaders of our country to agree that any policy that we adopt is commensurate with both combat requirements and the safety of the Armed Forces of the United States. And if they are not willing to certify that, then I certainly wouldn't want to be on record as supporting a policy or a treaty or a law that they felt was inimical to the safety of the Armed Forces of the United States. I guess I am really wondering what the controversy is about. Maybe there isn't much controversy.
Jon Kyl: “It seems that we would all want the military leaders of our country to agree that any policy that we adopt is…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of military leaders' certification on policies affecting the Armed Forces.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
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.
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.
The threat briefings that we received leave no question that both China and Russia, but particularly China see space as a war fighting domain.
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.





