So we are reducing weapons, but these other nations are going to want to increase, so that doesn't really compute with the logic of this thing. Now let's go to the next class of nations, third-world nations, maybe some of them that are more likely to be our opponents, adversaries, or troublemakers. Now we tell them we are going to reduce our number of nukes and our development of new things. What is their logical response to that? Well, let's see, they say, well, we could never whip them in conventional forces, so we have got to find some other way.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the implications of the U.S. reducing its nuclear arsenal on global security.
Share
More from W. Todd Akin
On rollcall No. 74, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
The basic point is that the fact that this is going to save $310 million is not true. What this in fact is going to do is to force a solution that will be more expensive for the government and not very good for the employees down at…
On rollcall Nos. 115, 116 and 117, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on No. 115, ``no'' on No. 116, and ``aye'' on No. 117. personal explanation
On rollcall No. 601 and 602, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on both. ____________________





