Let me try to sum up what I am saying about missile defense, although there is much more to talk about, and this will very definitely be the subject of maybe even the first amendment that is offered on our side because there has been such a cavalier attitude about this on the other side: We don't need any amendments. We don't need any missile defenses. This is serious business. You would never enter into a contract to buy a car or a house, for example, with a degree of uncertainty or disagreement between the parties as to what the terms mean. Think about this treaty. This is a very serious proposition that starts with a fundamental disagreement between the parties and clearly could create enormous complications in our relationships in the future. Instead of creating a more stable relationship, a relationship built on the reset, a relationship which is built on very clear, transparent views of things on how we are moving forward together, built into this treaty is an inherent conflict that can cause nothing but trouble in the future unless the United States says: Fine. We will not develop any missile defenses that could conceivably be effective against Russia, which then means that they couldn't be effective against an ICBM from Iran or an ICBM from Korea. This is the dilemma presented by this treaty and its preamble terms.
On the recordDecember 16, 2010
Editor's note · Context
Senator Kyl discusses concerns about missile defense in relation to a treaty.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
Oct 5, 2018
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 floor to speak…
Nov 14, 2023
Mr. Chairman, Representative Jacobs, we took into account the fact that our military leaders have said routinely that this strategic deterrent is the number one priority for them.
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.





