allowing the President to make more concessions to the Russians, to do so would be antithetical to our safety and security

General Kehler, we have been told that the deterrence relationship between the United States and Russia is stable.

The United States will proceed with missile defense in concert with our friends and allies.

There are very real, not long-term but near-term, potentialities that could embroil not only the United States, but the Middle East and our allies, in a full-fledged war.

We don't know what sort of unexpected challenges and threats our country will face in the future, is my point.

This is the number one responsibility the Federal Government has--a lot of other things that we do, we could put off or do without.

given that we are still fighting a land war in Afghanistan, coupled with our historical inability to predict the next conflict, on what do you base the conclusion that we will rely more heavily on air and sea capabilities in the future?

I know nobody believes us, but I'd know if we were.

the goal of a world without nuclear weapons is a long term pursuit and the conditions that would ultimately permit the United States and other nations to give up all their nuclear weapons without risking greater international instability…

What is your assessment of the risk the United States assumes by making such drastic cuts to our defense spending?

Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, do you agree that such aggression is unacceptable and does serious damage to U.S.-China relations?