I raised, as you recall, the exact same issues with Secretary Clinton and her team. I left there less than satisfied and I'm continuing to----

I am confident that the New START Treaty will in no way compromise America's nuclear deterrent.

I shared your concerns, that you raised in your testimony, about why the inspection regime was ratcheted back, here, when it is the most important part of the treaty.

Modernization is absolutely critical.

The statement in the preamble, in my view, is nothing more than a statement of the obvious and indeed, a truth which the United States long urged on the Soviet Union before they came to accept it.

For more than a decade the development of U.S. ballistic missile defenses has been guided by the principles of (1) protecting against limited strikes while (2) taking into account the legitimate concerns of Russia and China about strategic…

I'm truly concerned about the rogue countries and our defensive posture, when it comes to incoming from rogue countries, such as North Korea or Iran.

A treaty that requires no elimination of nuclear force structure by Russia while forcing the United States to reduce launchers is perhaps not in the United States national interest.

I think if we ignored our own peril, having some type of a missile defense system... we do so really at our own peril.

Well, General, I can tell you, you're the first witness to come before this committee that has interpreted their unilateral statement, written in the clearest of language, that they believe that they have an advantage over us when it comes…

The issue to me becomes more complex as we go forward and attempt to guard ourselves from an attack from Iran or North Korea.

For the Russians, it is not only a serious issue in their minds, but, more than that, it is a political battering ram that they have been using against us over the years, and I don't think that we will persuade them to give it up.