James M. Talent

But it is really important because the impact of the next 8 to 10 years, particularly in that theater, if they are able--I don't have to tell you all--to operationalize hypersonics, we have trouble because our missile defenses go out the…

I would just suggest I think success means protecting the American homeland, the territorial integrity of allies, the economy, from attacks.

I could not agree more with what Michele was saying about we need a whole-of-government approach to these competitions.

Part of what you are doing and need to do is to strengthen the civilian elements of national influence.

I am concerned that this is real and that they are, the latest developments are reflective of what is actually happening and that they may be well ahead of us.

I certainly agree that these are vital concerns, given the power of cyber weapons, their escalatory potential, and the downside consequences of a miscalculation.

I think the top-level political authority, which you all represent, what is it you want the outcome of this to be and why?

The military must also, going forward, engage the entirety of American society.

The foundation of America's military strength is the quality and morale of the men and women who have chosen to service.

What we were hearing back is a greater and greater level of frustration that the system doesn't seem to understand what they're dealing with.

We can't take the strength and the quality of our servicemen and women for granted.

The foundation of U.S. military power is the quality and morale of the men and women who have chosen to serve the Nation--in and out of uniform.

the warrior ethos is not a luxury, it is essential when you have a military.

We fear our military lacks the capability to attract, use, and keep the unconventional, technical, and cutting-edge talents and skills that it needs to meet future threats and new realities.

More than ever, the U.S. military must fully engage the entirety of American society, not only to expand the military's access to talent, but to also reconnect the Nation to its military.

I think, in terms of communication, one of the things I always believed is that people will pay more attention if there is something they can do.

My understanding of the science--and I will certainly invite Dr. Cairns and the deputy commissioner to weigh in here--is that probably, of the three, the weaponizing it would be the most difficult but, nevertheless, within the capability…

If you don't have the countermeasures, you can have all the rest of it done--it is like an army without bullets.

We do a lousy job of orientation on National security issues in general for new Members coming into this body.

BARDA has been underfunded. It is being funded at a fraction of what it needs.

What we are seeing here is, when we have, as in New York, unified authority which sets priorities, we have good use of dollars.

We ought to do for other biological agents what we have done for smallpox and, to some extent, for anthrax; and then continue to support FDA.

The threat of a bio-attack is, in my judgment, one of the greatest and gravest.

Congress cannot pay too much attention to the fact that we live in an era of information technology which has, unfortunately, greatly increased the danger to the United States and the world of asymmetric weapons.