I don't want to just do this and go through the motions of doing this and pretend that conditions are the same as they were when we started.

We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people, not only from Russians... but also that we are going to do everything we can to defensively protect ourselves from rogue nations.

The key question then, and in the decades since, has always been the same: Is the United States better off with a strategic arms agreement with the Russians, or without it?

I don't believe, for 1 minute, Iran is going to see this as a good sign.

your discussion about pursuing a discussion or a treaty on tactical weapons is certainly important.

I only wish that it said that right in the preamble, and say, 'Look, this thing has got nothing to do with missile defense, and the parties are going to go their own ways on it.'

I think, when you talk about 6,000 warheads, and now we're down to--I--you know, I thought--I think 1,500 is a considerable amount.

Your observation that the United States is the only nuclear power that is not going through modernization, I think, is an important observation.

we have deep differences with the Russians on what this treaty actually means when it comes to defending ourselves.

And, as a result of that, would you now agree with me that we have a difference, as far as the Russians are concerned, as to what this treaty actually says when it comes to our ability to defend ourselves?

But, would you agree with me that they said, in their unilateral statements, that they believe the treaty is such that we cannot defend ourselves using missile defense systems?

The START Treaty and the policies of the Obama administration are, down to the last detail, fully consistent with that advice.