John Thune

Thank you very much for providing your insights and responding to some of the questions that many of us have on this very important subject.

The New START treaty does not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible.

The New START is supposed to be about strategic offensive nuclear arms.

General Cartwright, as well as the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and both of us support the New START treaty including the limit of 700 on deployed strategic delivery vehicles.

DOD expects the current nuclear bomber force to remain in service through 2040.

Why do you believe $100 billion is a sufficient investment in our delivery systems over the next decade?

The United States will continue to configure and posture its forces to maintain the overall force's combined qualities of survivability, responsiveness, flexibility, and effectiveness for both large-scale and limited contingencies.

Is there a chance the administration could decide against a new bomber, ALCM, or follow-on ICBM?

The prohibition on the conversion of missile defense interceptors to offensive launchers set forth in Article V will have no operational impact on U.S. missile defense efforts.

The decision to agree to a limit of 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles did not result from a change in the security environment

The administration will invest $100 billion over the next decade in nuclear delivery systems.

Russia will threaten to withdraw from the treaty should the United States expand its current missile defense capabilities.

I note that General Cartwright stated this concern after the NPR team had already conducted detailed analysis.

How do we know the administration will pursue these programs?

Are you at all worried about undercutting the Air Force's improved emphasis on the nuclear mission after the problems the Air Force had with the nuclear mission a few years ago?

At the July 2009 summit between Presidents Obama and Medvedev, the two presidents agreed to create a bilateral presidential commission.

The full exercise of the United States of its legal rights under the ABM Treaty . . . would not constitute a basis for such withdrawal.

Whatever that right to peaceful nuclear energy may be, surely it is not an unqualified right.

The choice before the Senate is between this treaty and no legal obligation for Russia to keep its strategic nuclear forces below an agreed level.

Once these provisions were agreed, it became clear that we could sustain a strong Triad and meet deterrence and hedging requirements within a limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear-capable heavy bombers.

About $30 billion of this total will go toward development and acquisition of a new strategic submarine.

Are you concerned that the New START does not prevent Russia from shifting its force structure to large numbers of land-based MIRVs?

Secretary Gates, has DOD assessed whether the study of hypersonics is the most efficient use of resources in developing conventional military capability or is it merely to avoid counting toward the central limits in the New START?

The New START preamble recognizes: (1) the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms; (2) that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced…

The decision to agree to a limit of 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles did not result from a change in the security environment.