Let me just ask my friend, if he relies on a policy of deterrence based on the idea that we are going to destroy anyone who launches a ballistic missile against the United States, why wouldn't he use the same rationale and rely on the policy of deterrence against anyone who would shoot a slow-moving missile, and say to Iraq, ``If you shoot a slow-moving missile at Rijadh, we are going to use a nuclear weapon against you?''
Discussing U.S. deterrence policy regarding missile threats.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
I think the key is deterrence, because I think the truth is, whether it is the scenario that we looked at, the scenarios war games there, there is no certainty of victory if the Russians make a serious move against the Baltics, at least in…
Advanced technologies such as UAVs and EW can serve as important force multipliers that improve the effectiveness of current U.S.-European force posture but are by themselves insufficient in tipping the balance.
Let me take back my time and explain to the gentleman why it's important to have report language. You start programs and you also put policies in place. If you put those in the bill and those are locked into law and then you get a call…
Other voices in this conversation
