Dick Lugar

Well, that's good news.

My belief is that there will be independence, but there will be a time where these other functions are transitioned in a methodical and a safe and a secure way to the South.

But, as you suggest, somebody really has to lead this.

He'd be recognized, clearly, because of the previous election.

The United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons.

Let me just comment that at least we're told that eventually we want to get to 170,000 Afghan National Army soldiers and 130,000 police officers.

According to recent ISAF figures, there are now estimated to be 113,000 trained Afghan National Army soldiers and 109,000 persons trained for service in the Afghan National Police.

What is the current level of dedicated funds, and how long can the American people sustain this level of funding, in your estimate, after our troops have left?

I'm hopeful that our government will begin to work with the Afghan Government on what would be called a business plan.

But in Afghanistan, there is not that kind of promise.

I appreciate very much your going through, today, what already has been achieved.

But without a strategic nuclear treaty with Russia and all the consultations and transparency measures that come with it, we will have very little hope of tackling the more acute security problems that confront both of our nations.

the record is a little bit untidy and the way forward is for this committee in the ratification process with the administration to make clear that we accept no limits on our missile defense capabilities

time is running out. We are coming down the trail toward December the 5th.

Failure to ratify this essential follow-on treaty would represent an unraveling of past cooperation between the United States and Russia on arms reduction and pose a significant setback for nuclear security.

The United States is the only nuclear-weapons state not currently modernizing its nuclear capabilities and supporting infrastructure.

One of the values of having this close relationship with the Russians regarding the destruction of our chemical weapons stockpiles is that we both know what the other has at this point, and so does the rest of the world.

A 123 Agreement with Russia has been proposed by the administration.

I cannot recall at any point during this period of time that either Russia or the United States seriously discussed creating a sufficient missile defense that would stop several thousand missiles, all aimed with additional warheads on…

the New START Treaty is totally silent on rail-mobiles and that all previous START provisions that captured rail-mobile ICBMs were either deleted or changed to exclude them.

I believe a thorough and detailed debate can achieve similar levels of support.

I've been very much much concerned on--as I hope others are--on the technical disparity--the technical weapon disparity between the United States and Russia.

We must remember that a world without a binding United States-Russian nuclear weapons agreement is a much more dangerous world.

The risks of nuclear proliferation are real and must be addressed.

If the military leadership tells you that 1,550 nuclear warheads is sufficient to carry out our nuclear umbrella responsibilities, I think you're not going to get any better judgment than what they give you.