Political Quotes

“The central flaw in the argument against this amendment is that we are not talking about disarmament, unilateral or otherwise. Retired weapons do not add security. All they do is waste money to maintain them. What this amendment says is do not prohibit the administration from dismantling already-retired weapons. Now, talking about the threat from Russia, okay. There is a threat from Russia. I don't deny that. Modernization of nuclear weapons maybe should be a priority. That is a separate issue; but dismantling retired weapons doesn't weaken us versus Russia, doesn't help us--in fact, maybe it helps us by freeing up money for modernizing weapons. It is simply a waste of money to retain retired weapons. If we should have more active weapons, that is a different question; but, once we have retired the weapon, it costs money to maintain it. It also is a potential target for a terrorist to grab it or get the plutonium out of it or whatever. Retired warheads should be dismantled, regardless of the threat elsewhere. The question is: How many active warheads do we need? That is a separate topic. A retired warhead does not protect us. Dismantling a retired warhead just saves money. A retired warhead doesn't help us against the Russians or anybody else. It is simply a question of not wasting money. If modernization is a priority, fine. I don't agree with that, but spend money on modernization. Why waste money on keeping retired warheads in the storage bins?…”