Kay Bailey Hutchison: “we need to ensure that our defenses are not in any way inhibited by this treaty because we must defend against countries…”

“we need to ensure that our defenses are not in any way inhibited by this treaty because we must defend against countries that perhaps are not enemies of Russia, but they might be ours. And to in any way restrict our defenses is not necessary to ensure that we have mutual offensive lowering of numbers. So I am very concerned about this particular segment. If we can adopt the McCain amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, it would take me a significant way toward believing this treaty would be worthy of ratification. I am seriously concerned that although it is clear that a number of restrictions will be placed on the United States under this treaty, the same is not necessarily true for our partner to the treaty--Russia. Dr. Keith Payne, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Policy, has noted that New START's limitations are of little real consequence for Russia because Russia's aged Cold War strategic launchers already have been reduced below New START ceilings. Additionally, many defense analysts predict Russia will have fewer than 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2012. Russian defense expert Mikhail Barabonov bluntly makes the same point. He says: The truth is, Russia's nuclear arsenal is already at or even below the new ceilings. Already at or even below the new ceilings. At the time of the signing of the treaty, Russia had a total of just 640 strategic delivery vehicles--only 571 of them deployed . . .…”