Elizabeth Warren

The Air Force plans to produce LRSO cruise missiles in numbers roughly equal to the size of the current ALCM arsenal.

If China was developing a new, stealthy long-range bomber in combination with a stealthy long-range nuclear-armed cruise missile, would the United States consider that development destabilizing?

You testified that the proposed new nuclear-armed cruise missile, the Long-Range Stand-Off weapon (LRSO), is not destabilizing because it replaces an existing weapon system.

The United States has said that it will retain no more than 60 nuclear-capable deployed bombers in order to comply with New START.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is reported to have raised the idea of extending the New START beyond its current end date.

We need to have a secure and reliable NC3 capability, which is why I agree that NC3 modernization without delay should be a top priority.

Significant cuts would make it more difficult for you to do your part of your job.

The budget proposal put out by the Trump administration calls for about a 29 percent cut to the State Department and significant cuts to other agencies with international responsibilities.

Is it accurate to say that you work with the State Department and other civilian partners on nuclear nonproliferation and other efforts to detect and deter strategic threats to the United States?

Thank you, General Hyten, for your leadership and for your generosity with your time yesterday visiting my office.

I think we need to be smart about responding to and deterring Russia's asymmetric aggression.

Russia is actively working to destabilize countries along its border and undermine unity within the European Union and NATO.

Funding cuts to agencies that conduct diplomacy and development will make your job as EUCOM Commander easier or more difficult?

Planning for peace is hard. We did not do it after we toppled Saddam Hussein, and we are still paying a price for that blindness today.

Recapping our State Department by cutting an already small foreign aid budget makes America less safe, and that is just not smart.

Not every international problem is the same and the right tool is not always a military response.

I take it from this, it is important to bring as much pressure as we can bear on China to try to get China to bring more pressure on North Korea to try to get them to abide by some kind of control agreement.

If that's actually our goal, it seems to me that it would make sense that we would want the nuclear agency that's charged with monitoring this to have the tools that it needs to be able to do its job.

The impact is everywhere.

It sounds like to me that enforcing the deal we have is better than not having a deal.

My concern, if we unilaterally abrogated the agreement, is that we would find ourselves in a very weak position to restore the kind of sanctions that forced Iran to negotiate in the first place.

Now President Trump says he wants to ignore all of this and instead he has threatened to rip up the Iran nuclear deal. It's not just our deal with Iran.

Given what Iran is willing to do, I think it's a lot easier to counter their provocative actions so long as Iran does not have nuclear weapons than it would be to try to cabin Iran if they possessed a nuclear weapon.

When we can't describe even in the most general terms what will happen if you engage in a cyber attack against us, ... deterrence at that moment melts away to nothing.

But doesn't that argue, then, even more strongly for a deterrence strategy?