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 anytime that you have a situation where academic freedom is being constrained, that has real implications for national security.
I think competition works well when it is driving innovation, and obviously also can work well to control costs.
I think what today's hearing and what this situation and NATO's eastern flank highlights is the fact that we don't have a tremendous amount of time to wait around for the next great Army to show up in 10 to 15 to 20 years.
Other voices in this conversation
